Uttarakhand High Court
"X" And "Y" vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 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
13th DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 776 of 2023
"X" And "Y", through their Mothers .....Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for the Revisionists : Mr. Sharang Dhulia,
Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy
Advocate General.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The proposed Criminal Revision has been preferred
under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, "Act, 2015"), challenging the
judgment dated 12.09.2023, passed by learned Children
Court/FTC/ Additional Sessions Judge(POCSO), Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Bail Appeal No.149 of 2023, whereby, the
learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed
the order dated 19.07.2023, passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
District Udham Singh Nagar (in short, "Board") in Bail
Application No. 57 of 2023, by which, the bail applications of
the revisionists, filed through their mothers under Section 12
of the Act, 2015 in respect of Case Crime No. 263 of 2023,
registered at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh, were
rejected. Revisionists are detained in the observation home
since 13.06.2023 for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 504, 506, 452 and Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Heard Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the
revisionists and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State.
3. Objection, filed by the State, is taken on record.
4. Admit.
5. Opposing the Revision, Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned
Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, submitted
that on the night of 02.06.2023, revisionists along with the co-
accused persons committed the murder of the informant's son
by beating him with sticks, sharp edged weapon and iron rods.
6. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, appearing for the
revisionists, contended that the revisionists, aged about 15 and
16 years respectively, have been falsely implicated in the
present matter. There are material contradictions in the
statements of the injured and other witnesses, recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Revisionists are pursuing their studies. According to the Social
Investigation Report, revisionists do not have any bad habits.
They have not been found involved in any unacceptable
activities.
7. Undisputedly, the revisionists were 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 12.09.2023, passed by learned
Appellate Court and order dated 19.07.2023, passed by Board
are set aside.
11. Let the revisionists, who are detained in the
observation home, be released on bail after furnishing personal
bonds by their mother/natural guardian with two reliable
sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board
concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The mother/natural guardian of the revisionists
shall furnish an undertaking that the revisionists will
pursue their studies.
(ii) The mother/natural guardian of the revisionists
shall furnish an undertaking that upon release on
bail, the revisionists will not be permitted to come
into contact with any known criminal.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated 13.12.2023
Shiksha/
