Uttarakhand High Court
Astitva Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 256 of 2022
With
Bail Application No. 1 of 2022
Astitva Saxena ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. with Ms. Meena Bisht for the
State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
judgment and order dated 20.05.2022, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.02 of 2022, Astitva Saxena Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, by the court of Special Judge, POCSO/
Additional District Judge/FTC, Haldwani ("the appeal").
2. The revisionist is a Child in Conflict with Law
(the CIL). He is in custody in Case Crime No. 56 of 2022,
under Sections 354 C, 376 D IPC and 11/12, 3/4 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the
Act") and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,
2000. The CIL sought bail from the Juvenile Justice Board
("JJ Board"), Nainital, which was denied on 13.05.2022. The
order dated 13.03.2022, passed by the JJ Board, Nainital,
was challenge in the appeal, which was dismissed on
20.05.2022 by the impugned order. The CIL, while
challenging the impugned judgment and order, also seeks
bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, the CIL raped the victim, a
girl aged 13 years when she was studying in class 8th. The
CIL videographed this act. The victim was threatened to
make the video viral. The victim in her statement under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
narrated the story. According to it, in January, 2022, on a
Sunday, the CIL raped her in his house. On 06.04.2022,
the co-accused messaged her, called outside, took her into
the house of the CIL where both of them raped the victim.
On 11.04.2022, the victim came to know that the act has
been videographed and made viral. The victim was
medically examined. She also revealed these facts to the
Doctor.
5. Learned counsel for the CIL would argue that in
the matters of bail to CIL, the gravity of offence has
nothing to do; the CIL may be granted bail, under Section
12 of the Act. It is argued that there is no impediment in
the grant of bail to the CIL because nothing has been
brought to the record that in case of release, he may be
brought in association to any known criminal or may
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
6. It is true that a CIL is entitled to bail
irrespective of the offence being classified as bailable or
non-bailable, the only embargo is given in the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act. If it appears that 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, such CIL may not be enlarged on bail.
7. The act done by the CIL is grave, heinous and
dangerous. It was done with a girl of 13 years of age. It was
not done once. It is a repeated act. It is done under threat
to the victim. The sexual act was videographed. Many
persons have seen it. They have stated it to the
Investigating Officer. The provision of bail under Section 12
of the Act is, in fact, for the welfare of a child.
Undoubtedly, in the instant case, if the CIL is released, he
would again come in contact with the co-accused. Both
have committed the act. It will definitely expose him to
psychological danger. It will definitely defeat the ends of
justice.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the CIL
is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the court below
has rightly rejected the bail application. Accordingly, the
bail application as well as the revision deserves to be
dismissed.
9. The revision is dismissed. Consequently, the
bail application also stands dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
30.06.2022
Ravi Bisht
