Uttarakhand High Court
Harpreet Singh @ Happy vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 317 of 2020
Harpreet Singh @ Happy ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist
against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2020, passed by the
learned Juvenile Court/FTC/ Additional District Judge, Udham Singh
Nagar, in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 173 of 2020, Harpreet Singh @
Happy (Minor) Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the bail application
of the revisionist has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that
revisionist was arrested in connection with FIR No. 295 of 2020,
relating to offences punishable under Sections 8, 22 and 60 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He submitted
that the revisionist is a juvenile. The revisionist moved bail
application before the Juvenile Court, but the same was rejected vide
order dated 02.12.2020. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued
that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board is incorrect.
4. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000, provides that when any person accused of a
bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is
arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such
person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time
being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed
under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any
fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there
appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to
bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would
defeat the ends of justice.
5. Thus, as per Section 12 of the Act, the revisionist shall
be subject to the condition mentioned in the Act. In the present case,
admittedly, the revisionist is a Juvenile.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the
family members of the revisionist have no criminal history. Parents of
the revisionist are ready to keep revisionist with him and are ready to
give undertaking.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court finds it a fit case for granting bail.
8. The revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order
dated 02.12.2020, passed by the learned Juvenile Court/FTC/
Additional District Judge Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Bail
Appeal No. 173 of 2020, Harpreet Singh @ Happy (Minor) Vs. State
of Uttarakhand is set aside.
9. Let revisionist Harpreet Singh @ Happy be released on
bail on executing person bond by his natural guardian and father and
furnishing two sureties each of the like amount also by his natural
guardian and father to the satisfaction of Juvenile Court/FTC/
Additional District Judge Udham Singh Nagar. His father shall give
undertaking that the Juvenile will remain in his custody.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
13.01.2021
Shubham
