Uttarakhand High Court
Nirmala vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 660 of 2022
Nirmala ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the
revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) The order dated 29.09.2022 passed in
the Second Bail Application No. 123 of
2022, by the Juvenile Justice Board
("the JJ Board"), Haridwar, by which
the second bail application of the
of 2022 under Section 366A IPC and
Section 16/17 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District
Haridwar, has been rejected; and
(ii) The judgment and order dated
19.10.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 221 of 2022, Nirmala v. State of
Uttarakhand, by the learned District &
Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by which
the bail rejection order dated
29.09.2022 passed by the JJ Board
has been affirmed.
2. The revisionist is a Child-In-Conflict with Law
("the CIL"). She also seeks bail.
3. According to the FIR, the CIL took the victim, a
young girl of 13 years of age, in a garden. There she left the
victim in the company of the co-accused, who raped the
victim.
4. It is argued that the CIL did not commit any
offence; she is a young girl; she does not know what had
happened; she has no role in any act that has allegedly been
committed by the co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that
the offence is heinous in nature. In fact, the State has not
chosen to file any objections despite the opportunity having
been given.
6. Today, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for
the CIL has placed before the Court, the order passed by the
JJ Board, Haridwar dated 29.09.2022 and as well as the
report of the Probation Officer, which reveals that the CIL is
a young girl; her family is poor; she has less understanding
to distinguish between right and wrong; her family
atmosphere is also good.
7. The father of the CIL seeks custody of the CIL.
8. A CIL is entitled to bail, irrespective of the offence
being classified as bailable or non-bailable. The only rider
which prevents release of a CIL on bail, even in bailable
offence is contained in proviso to Section 12 (1) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
According to it, a CIL may be denied bail even in bailable
offences, if the release of the CIL may bring him in
association to any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger, or otherwise his release
may defeat the ends of justice.
9. The Act is based on certain principles, which are
given under Section 3 of the Act and one of the principles is
that it is the primary responsibility of the biological family or
adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be, of a child to
care, nurture and protect the child.
10. The Probation Officer's report reveals that the CIL
has a family to look after her. The atmosphere of her house
is good. They are poor people.
11. Having considered all these facts, this Court is of
the view that in this case, there is no impediment in the
grant of bail to the CIL. Accordingly, the revision deserves to
be allowed.
12. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgments
and orders are set aside.
13. The CIL be given into the custody of her father
subject to production of two reliable sureties. The father of
the CIL shall also give an undertaking that he shall take
care of the CIL and shall not allow her to contact any of the
witnesses or their family members. The father of the CIL
shall also undertake that he shall also not contact either the
witnesses or any of their family members.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
12.12.2022
Avneet/
