Pranav Choudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3136 UK

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No. 565 of 2022

Pranav Choudhary                                   ...Revisionist

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                 ...Respondents


Present:-
             Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the revisionist.
             Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe for
             the State.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

judgment and order dated 06.09.2022, passed in Criminal

Appeal No.171 of 2022, Pranav Choudhary Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, by the court of District and Sessions Judge,

Haridwar ("the appeal") and order dated 01.08.2022, passed

in FIR No. 0964 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3),

376(D)(A), 506, 201 IPC and Section 5(2)/6 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act"), by the

Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar.

2. The revisionist is a Child in Conflict with Law

(the CIL).

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the CIL that

the trial of co-accused is underway in the Special Court,

under the Act, in which the victim and her grandfather,

both have not supported the prosecution case; in the

enquiry against the CIL, the statements of the victim and

her grandfather have yet not been recorded; the CIL has a

family to look after; he is a student; the impugned

judgment and orders are not in accordance with law. It is

also submitted that the co-accused, for the same incident,

has already been granted bail after the evidence of the

victim and her grandfather.

5. Learned State Counsel submit that the first

revision seeking bail by the CIL has already been rejected,

but admits that in the trial against the co-accused, for the

same incident, the victim and her grandfather, the

informant, have not supported the prosecution case.

6. For a CIL, bail is a rule irrespective of the

offence being categorised as bailable or non-bailable

offence, unless there are some impediments in grant of

bail, as given in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. But, if

there is no case against the CIL, he may not be kept in

custody. It is stated that the CIL has a family to look after.

He is a student. It is stated by learned counsel for the CIL

that even after preliminary assessment under Section 50 of

the Act, the CIL is facing enquiry under the provision of

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015. Once the bail of the CIL has already been rejected.

He moved second time after evidence of the victim and her

grandfather, the informant, recorded in the trial of the co-

accused. Both have not supported the prosecution case.

7. The court below has observed that the evidence

recorded in another case may not be considered. The

authenticity of the statements given by the victim and her

grandfather, the informant, in a trial against the co-

accused for the same offence, is not in dispute. It is also

not in dispute that the victim did not support the

prosecution case not only qua co-accused, but also against

the CIL, she has not supported the prosecution case. It

makes out a case for bail.

8. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned

order, the CIL may be given into the custody of his father.

9. Both the impugned orders are set aside.

10. Let the CIL be given in the custody of his 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 him 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 any of their family members.

11. The revision is allowed, accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.09.2022 Ravi Bisht