Vishal (Juvenile) vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1928 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Bail Application No. 1 of 2021
                           And
            Criminal Revision No. 171 of 2022

Vishal (Juvenile)
                                              ........Revisionist

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand                        ....Respondent
Present:-
            Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the revisionist.
            Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General           with
            Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

followings:-

(i) Order dated 11.01.2021 passed in

Bail Application No. 01 of 2021,

State v. Vishal, by the Juvenile

Justice Board, Haridwar (JJ Board).

By it, the bail application of the

revisionist, who is child in conflict

("the CIL") has been declined; and

(ii) Order dated 25.01.2021 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2021,

Vishal v. State of Uttarakhand, by

the court of Additional District &

Sessions Judge/Special Judge

(POCSO), Haridwar ("the Appeal").

2. The CIL is in custody in Case Crime No. 374 of

2020, under Section 376AB, 323, 506 IPC and Section

5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012, P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar. He applied for

bail, which has been declined by the JJ Board by the

impugned order. The order passed by the JJ Board has

unsuccessfully been challenged in the appeal. Hence, the

revision.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that

CIL is about thirteen years of age. He has been in the

observation home for a long. The impugned orders do not

record, as to how the bail may not be granted to the CIL

in view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of the Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act").

5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel

would submit that the victim is five years old. The mental

condition of the CIL is not such that he may be enlarged

on bail. The offences are grave and serious.

6. In cases of the CIL, there is no difference

between bailable and non-bailable offences. A CIL has to

be enlarged on bail, unless there are impediments as

given under proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act.

7. According to the prosecution case, the CIL

raped a five years old girl. Immediately after the incident,

the victim complained it to her mother. People gathered

there. The victim was bleeding from her vagina. The

doctor examined her and noted the injuries. She was

operated and her vagina was reconstructed.

8. It is argued that the CIL is thirteen years of

age. The proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act provides that

where the release of a CIL may bring him into association

with any known criminal or expose the said CIL to moral,

physical or psychological danger or his release would

defeat the ends of justice, such CIL may not be enlarged

on bail.

9. The victim has already been examined. The

kind of offence is undoubtedly grave. Undoubtedly, it

reflects his state of mind. The victim and the CIL are

neighbours. Definitely, if he is released, it may cause

psychological danger and definitely it would defeat the

ends of justice. The court below has rightly rejected the

bail application. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be

dismissed.

10. The revision is dismissed. Consequently, the

bail application is also rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.07.2022 Avneet/