Uttarakhand High Court
Alishad (Minor) vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2022
With
Bail Application (IA) No. 1 of 2022
Alishad (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. with Ms. Meena Bisht for the
State.
Mr. Prabhat Bohra, Advocate for the private
respondent.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
judgment and order dated 10.02.2022, passed in Criminal
Bail Appeal No.41 of 2022, Alishad (Minor) Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, by the Juvenile Court/ FTC/Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO, Rudrapur, Udham
Singh Nagar and order dated 29.01.2022, passed in Bail
Application No.07 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Alishad,
by the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, Udham
Singh Nagar ("the JJ Board") and also for enlarging the
revisionist on bail.
2. The revisionist is a Child in Conflict with Law
(the CIL). According to the case, on 18.11.2021, at 9:30 A.M.,
with regard to a place for selling fish, a dispute arose in
which the co-accused attacked the victim. The co-accused
are brother and father of the CIL. The father of the CIL, it is
stated by learned counsel for the CIL, is still in jail. By the
order dated 29.01.2022, the JJ Board declined bail to the
CIL, and that order has been confirmed in the impugned
order dated 10.02.2022.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that
it was a small dispute which arose suddenly; the CIL has
no criminal antecedent; his father is in jail; he is a 12
years old child; even witnesses have stated that he did not
commit any offence; he was at a distance only, abusing.
Reference has been made to the impugned judgment dated
10.02.2022, particularly para 10.
5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit
that the release of the applicant may expose him to the
known criminals.
6. Learned State Counsel very fairly conceded that
the CIL may be given into the custody of his mother.
7. The categorization of offenses like bailable or
non-bailable loses its significance when it comes to the
application under the provision of the Act. Section 12 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 ("the Act"), irrespective of bailable or non-bailable
commands the courts to enlarge a CIL on bail. But the
proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act makes some conditions
under which a CIL may not be released on bail. It includes
that if the release of the CIL may bring him into association
with any known criminal or may expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice.
8. Instant is a case which arises from a small
dispute with regard to the place from where fish may be
sold by the two parties. The family members of the CIL on
one side and the victim on the other side.
9. This Court is of the view that it is a case in
which riders, as given in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
Act are not attracted. Therefore, while setting aside the
impugned order, the CIL may be given into the custody of
his mother.
10. Both the impugned orders are set aside.
11. Let the CIL be given in the custody of his
mother, subject to production of two reliable sureties. The
mother of the CIL shall also give an undertaking that she
shall take care of the CIL and shall not allow him to
contact any of the witnesses or their family members. The
mother of the CIL shall also undertake that she shall also
not contact either the witnesses or any of any of their
family members.
12. The Revision is allowed, accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.08.2022
Ravi Bisht
