Uttarakhand High Court
Suraj Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application IA No. 1 of 2021
in
Criminal Revision No. 436 of 2021
Suraj Bhatt ................ Revisionist
versus
State of Uttarakhand ................ Respondent
Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. .
-----------
Order dated: 08.03.2022
Hon'ble N.S.Dhanik, J.
1. Revisionist-applicant and the deceased both are
juvenile. They were student of the same class IV
in the same school. The allegation against the
accused-revisionist is that he used to misbehave,
threaten and assault the deceased. On the
alleged date and time of the incident, he
assaulted the deceased with fists and kicks on
his stomach and private part. As a result of such
assault, the deceased died. Vide order dated
07.10.2021, the Juvenile Justice Board,
Rudrapur has refused to grant bail to the
accused-revisionist. Aggrieved thereby, the
accused revisionist preferred appeal, which was
rejected by the FTC/Additional Sessions Judge,
Rdurapur, Dehradun vide order dated
14.12.2021. Hence, the present revision.
2. The accused revisionist has been denied bail by
the authorities concerned /courts below on the
ground that his release is likely to bring him in
association with any known criminals or explore
him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist/applicant and learned counsel for the
State.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended
that while declining the bail to the juvenile on the
aforesaid ground, there must be objective
assessment of the reasonable ground that release
of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association
with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice.
5. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection), Act, 2015 is quoted below:
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a
"
child alleged to be in conflict with law.-
(1) When any person, who is apparently a
child and is alleged to have committed a
bailable or non-bailable offence, is
apprehended or detained by the police or
appears or brought before a Board, such
person shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or in any other law for the time being in
force, be released on bail with or without
surety or placed under the supervision of a
probation officer or under the care of any fit
person:
Provided that such person shall not be so
released if there appears reasonable grounds
for believing that the release is likely to bring
that person into association with any known
criminal or expose the said person to moral,
physical or psychological danger or the
person's release would defeat the ends of
justice, and the Board shall record the reasons
for denying the bail and circumstances that led
to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been
apprehended is not released on bail under
subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the
police station, such officer shall cause the
person to be kept only in an observation home
in such manner as may be prescribed until the
person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall
make an order sending him to an observation
home or a place of safety, as the case may be,
for such period during the pendency of the
inquiry regarding the person, as may be
specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable
to fulfill the conditions of bail order within
seven days of the bail order, such child shall
be produced before the Board for modification
of the conditions of bail."
6. That in the aforesaid circumstances and
provision of law, the benefit of bail cannot be
denied to the juvenile on the ground that there is
likelihood that release of the juvenile would bring
him in association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral or psychological danger.
Learned counsel further submits that such
apprehension is wholly without any basis as the
mother and father of the revisionist are always
available at home to look after the revisionist.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits
that the inquest of the deceased was conducted
at CHC, Gadarpur on 21.09.2021, at about 12:32
PM, however, the complainant and his family
members, who were present at the time of
inquest, did not make any allegation against the
revisionist. The cousin of the deceased, namely,
Dipanshu had stated that they received the
information from the School that the deceased
had fainted. The postmortem of the deceased was
conducted at J.L.N. Government Hospital,
Rudrapur on 21.09.2021, however, the cause of
death of the deceased could not be ascertained
and the viscera were preserved. The Doctor, who
conducted the postmortem of the deceased, in his
statement recorded under Section 161 had
clearly stated that he found two injuries of 0.2 x
0.5 cm on the body of the deceased, but he did
not find any such injury on the body of the
deceased which could have caused death.
Learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist
contended that the learned Courts below ignored
the social investigation report of the revisionist
filed by the Probation Officer, which was found to
be satisfactory and the revisionist was never
found involved in any known criminal activity or
in association of any person of bad or immoral
character. Learned counsel for the revisionist
also contended that from the prosecution story
itself, it can be inferred that it was not possible
for deceased to die by assault of the revisionist
alone. This is also corroborated by the
postmortem itself.
8. Learned State counsel opposed the bail
application and submits that there is no infirmity
in the orders passed by the learned courts below.
9. Having heard the rival submissions and
considering the import of Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Board and facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact
that father and mother of the revisionist are
available to look after the revisionist, and without
any comment on the final hearing of the case,
this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the
revisionist. Consequently, the present revision is
allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.12.2021
passed by learned Juvenile
Court/FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, POCSO, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 262 of 2021
"Suraj Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand" and the
judgment and order dated 07.10.2021, passed by
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar in Bail Application No. 99 of
2021 are set aside. Revisionist is ordered to be
released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of
Rs. 50,000/-each by his mother and father with
one surety each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(N.S.Dhanik, J.)
KKS
