Uttarakhand High Court
Pappu @ Aman Singh (Juvenile) vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 269 of 2022
Pappu @ Aman Singh (Juvenile) ..........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........ Respondent
Present : Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Revisionist is a Child In Conflict with law ("the
CIL"), who is in custody in FIR No.339 of 2021, under
Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and under Section 3/4 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
("the Act"), Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham
Singh Nagar. He seeks bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The CIL has been denied bail by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar
("J.J. Board") on 04.03.2022 in Bail Application No. 16 of
2022. It was unsuccessfully challenged by the CIL in
Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2022, "Pappu @ Aman Singh
vs. State", in the Court of Children Court/FTC/Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO ("the appeal"). The
appeal was decided on 25.03.2022. Both the orders i.e.
order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the J.J. Board and
order dated 25.03.2022 passed in the appeal are
impugned in the revision.
4. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that
the report submitted with regard to social status of the
CIL, does not reveal anything which may deny him bail. It
is also argued that in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
("the Code"), victim did not support the prosecution case.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that there
is no reference that if the CIL is released, he would come
in contact with any criminal.
6. It is a case of child in conflict with law, who as
per the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children), 2015 is entitled for bail,
but its proviso makes restriction that such CIL shall not
be released on bail if there appears reasonable grounds
for believing that the release is likely to bring the CIL into
association with any known criminal or expose the said
CIL to moral, physical or psychological danger or the CIL's
release would defeat the ends of justice.
7. The statement of the victim recorded under
Section 164 of the Code has been quoted in the order
dated 25.03.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of
2022 by the Children Court/F.T.C./Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Udham Singh Nagar. It
reveals that the victim and the applicant both were below
18 years of age. They were in relationship. The victim left
her house along with the CIL.
8. There are various questions that would require
to be deliberated on merits. The victim says that whatever
relations she had with the CIL, were voluntarily
established by her with her free consent and free will.
Since she is below 18 years of age, her consent has not
been taken into consideration. But, the fact remains that
the CIL is also a child. Parties were in relationship.
9. Nothing has been brought on record, which in
any manner would reveal that this case may attract the
circumstances as mentioned in the proviso of Section 12
(1) of the Act. As stated, it is a case of relationship.
10. Having considered the entirety of the facts, this
is a case in which the CIL should be released on bail.
11. Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to
be allowed.
12. The criminal revision is allowed.
13. Both the impugned judgment and order are
set-aside.
14 Let the CIL be released on bail, subject to
production of two reliable sureties, one of which shall be
of his father. The CIL should be given into the care of his
father. The father of the CIL shall also give an
undertaking that he shall take care of the CIL and does
not allow him to contact the victim or any of her family
members. The father of the applicant shall also undertake
that he shall also not contact either the victim or any of
her family members.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.06.2022
AK
