Uttarakhand High Court
Shariq vs The State Of Uttarakhand And ... on 8 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.168 of 2021
Shariq ............... Revisionist
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand and another ...... Respondents
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd. Safdar,
learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned B.H. for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the private respondent.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This criminal revision is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar in Case Crime/FIR
No.328/2021, as well as the judgment and order dated
23.06.2021 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO), Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.80/2021,
Shariq vs. State.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as
learned Counsel for the State admitted that the revisionist
is a juvenile who is involved in connection with Case Crime
/FIR No.328/2021 under Sections 302, 34 IPC, registered
at P.S. Gangnahar, Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar.
4. The revisionist, being a juvenile, moved the bail
application before the Juvenile Board Haridwar, which was
rejected vide order dated 15.06.2021. Aggrieved by it, the
revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.80/2021 before
the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO,
Haridwar, which was also dismissed vide judgment and
order dated 23.06.2021. Hence, this revision.
5. Admittedly, the revisionist was below 17 years at
the time of the incident. From a 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. In the present case, the bail has been
dismissed considering the gravity of offences alleged to
have been committed by the revisionist.
6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 deals with bail to a child
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 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."
7. A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act reveals
that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be
entitled to 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. The distinction between bailable
or non-bailable offence has been done away with in respect
of a juvenile. In other words, every juvenile is entitled to be
released on bail except in circumstances where his/her
release will bring him/her into association with any known
criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the
ends of justice. As per the Section 2 (12) of the Act, 'child'
means a person who has not completed eighteen years of
age."
8. Admittedly, the revisionist was below 17 years of
age at the time of incident. As per Section 12 of the Act,
the bail can be refused if there appears reasonable ground
for believing that the release is likely to bring that person
into association with any known criminal; there is no
report against the revisionist filed by the District Probation
Officer about his criminal antecedent. The word 'known'
has not been used by the Parliament without purpose. By
use of the word 'known', the Parliament requires that the
Court must know the full particulars of the criminal with
whom the delinquent is likely to come into association. In
the case in hand, there is no such evidence on record
regarding the same; both the impugned orders are silent
about it; the bail of the delinquent was rejected simply on
the ground that the offence is heinous in nature while
Section 12 of the Act is silent about it.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the Courts below had erred in
law in not releasing the juvenile on bail.
10. As a result, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The
orders, under challenge, are set aside. The juvenile in
conflict with law (revisionist) shall be enlarged on bail in
the aforesaid crime on furnishing two sureties and personal
bond of Rs.40,000/- to be executed by the father of the
revisionist to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board
/Court concerned. It is further directed that the custody of
the juvenile/revisionist shall be given to his father. The
father of the revisionist will file an affidavit, along with a
personal bond, to the effect that during inquiry.
11. The grant of bail to the revisionist shall be
subject to the condition that his father will take the
revisionist to the concerned Probation Officer once in a
month, and revisionist shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
concerned Juvenile Board without its prior permission, and
further, that the revisionist shall not try to contact or
influence the witnesses in any manner or tamper with the
evidence. In case of any violation of these conditions, the
respondent-State will be at liberty to approach the Juvenile
Board for cancellation of the bail of the revisionist.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
08.11.2021
BS
