Uttarakhand High Court
Komal Singh (Minor) vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2021
Komal Singh (minor) .....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This revision is directed against the judgment
and order dated 18.01.2021, passed by the learned
F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO) in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 3 of 2021, Komal
Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand , as well as the order
dated 19.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Udham Singh Nagar, in bail application no. 80
of 2020 (FIR No. 324 of 2020) State vs. Komal Singh.
2. Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile who is
involved in crime no. 324 of 2020, under section
8/20/60 of N.D. P.S. Act and under section 3/25 Arms
Act, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. The revisionist is juvenile in conflict with law. He
is involved in the aforesaid crime. He, being a
juvenile, moved bail application before the Juvenile
Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated
19.12.2020. Being Aggrieved, the revisionist
preferred appeal no. 2 of 2021 before the appellate
court which was also dismissed vide order dated
18.01.2021.
4. Admittedly, the revisionist was less than 18
years at the time of the incident. From the perusal of
the order passed by the Board it appears that the sole
ground on which the bail was denied is that the
revisionist may again commit an offence. Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 deals with bail in conflict with law
which reads as under:-
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child
alleged to be in conflict with law.-(1) When
any person, who is apparently a child and is
alleged to have committed a bailable or non-
bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or 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 person:
Provided that such person shall not be so
released if there appears reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the person's release would
defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall
record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is
not released on bail under subsection (1) by the
officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home in such manner as may be
prescribed until the person can be brought before a
Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under
sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an
order sending him to an observation home or a
place of safety, as the case may be, for such
period during the pendency of the inquiry
regarding the person, as may be specified in the
order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to
fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days
of the bail order, such child shall be produced
before the Board for modification of the conditions
of bail."
5. As per the above section, the bail can be refused
if there appears reasonable ground that the release is
likely to bring that person into association with any
known criminal. The word "known" has not been
defined. By use of the word "known" the Parliament
requires that the Court must know the full particulars
of the criminals with whom the applicant/revisionist is
likely to come into association. In the present matter
there is no such evidence on record regarding the
same.
6. In view of the above, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that both the courts below had
committed mistake in not releasing the juvenile on
bail.
7. Sri Dharam Singh is father of the revisionist
(juvenile). Accordingly, the juvenile in conflict with
law can be given in the custody of natural guardian
"father".
8. As a result, the revision is allowed. The orders
under challenge are set aside. The juvenile in conflict
with law shall be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid
crime on two sureties and personal bond of Rs.
25,000/- to be executed by the father of the juvenile
in conflict with law to the satisfaction of the Juvenile
Justice Board. It is further directed that the custody
of the juvenile/revisionist shall be given to his father.
The father of the revisionist shall file an affidavit
along with personal bond to the effect that during
enquiry/trial, the juvenile shall remain in his custody
and control, and father will take the revisionist to the
concerned Probation Officer once a month and the
revisionist shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Justice Board without prior permission of the
Board.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
Parul 02.03.2021
