Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 December, 2023
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
11th DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 637 of 2023
"X", Child in conflict with law through his father
.....Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy
Advocate General.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The proposed Criminal Revision under Section 102 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(in short, "Act, 2015"), has been preferred by the child in
conflict with law through his father challenging the judgment
dated 27.03.2023, passed by learned Children Court/FTC/
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Udham
Singh Nagar in Criminal Bail Appeal No.46 of 2023, whereby,
the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal and
affirmed the order dated 14.03.2023, passed by Juvenile
Justice Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (in short,
"Board") in Enquiry No.61 of 2023, by which, the Board had
rejected the bail application of the revisionist, filed through his
father, under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in respect of Case
Crime No.823 of 2022, registered at police station Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar. Revisionist is detained in the
observation home for the offence under Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(a) read with Section 4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the
revisionist and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
3. Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, appearing for the
revisionist, contended that the revisionist has been falsely
implicated in the present matter. As per the report of the
District Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, the conduct and
behavior of the revisionist are normal. Nothing has been found
against the revisionist to indicate that he is involved in any
unacceptable activities.
4. Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, further submitted that the
revisionist should go to the school and for the said purpose,
the father of the revisionist may be directed.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail
application. However, he has conceded that as per the report
of the Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, nothing was
found against the revisionist to indicate that he was involved in
any criminal activities.
6. Admit.
7. Undisputedly, the revisionist was juvenile at the time
of the alleged offence. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 deals with
bail to juvenile, which reads as under:-
"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 (2 of 1974) 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 sub-section (1) by the
officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home or a place of safety, as the case
may be 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 fulfil
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."
8. While implementing the provisions of the Act, 2015,
the Court shall be governed by the principle of best interest i.e.
all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary
consideration that they are in the interest of the child. The
object of the Act, 2015 is reformative and not further
degradation.
9. Having considered the submissions made at the bar
and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that the present revision may be allowed.
10. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision is
allowed. The judgment dated 27.03.2023, passed by learned
Appellate Court and order dated 14.03.2023, passed by Board
are set aside.
11. Let the revisionist, who is detained in the
observation home, be released on bail after furnishing a
personal bond by his father with two reliable sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) The father of the revisionist shall furnish an
undertaking that the revisionist will pursue his study.
(ii) The father of the revisionist shall furnish an
undertaking that upon release on bail, the revisionist
will not be permitted to come into contact with any
known criminal.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated 11.12.2023
Pant/
