Uttarakhand High Court
X vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 592 of 2022
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
X ...........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the
revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with Ms.
Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision is preferred against the
following:-
(i) Order dated 20.08.2022, passed in Bail
Application No. 78 of 2022, State vs. X, by the
court of Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar (for
short, "JJ Board"). By it the bail application of
the revisionist, who is a Child in Conflict with
Law (for short, "the CIL") has been rejected and;
(ii) Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2022, passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 2022, X vs. State
of Uttarakhand, by the court of District and
Sessions Judge, Haridwar (for short, "the
appeal"). By which, order dated 20.08.2022 of
the JJ Board has been upheld. The revisionist
seeks bail.
2. According to the FIR, the CIL enticed the victim,
a young girl of 16 years of age and did galat kaam with
her.
3. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that
the CIL and the victim, both were in relationship. In her
statement given to the Investigating Officer, the victim has
revealed her relationship with the CIL and has stated that
they both went together and established physical relations.
4. It is argued that the CIL has a family to look
after; he is not a criminal; he may be given in the custody
of his father, so that he may stay with his family.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the
victim was a minor. The CIL established physical relations
with her, which amounts to an offence.
6. A CIL is always entitled to bail irrespective of the
offence being bailable or non-bailable. The only rider is
given under Section 12(1) proviso of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (for short, "the Act"),
according to which, a CIL may not be released on bail, if
there appears reasonable grounds for believing that his
release may likely to bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends
of justice.
7. The principles which governs the Act are given
under Section 3 of the Act. One of those principles defines
the responsibility of biological family of the CIL. According
to it, it is the primary responsibility of the biological family
of a CIL to nurture, look after and take care of the CIL.
8. The CIL in the instant case, has family to look
after. The Probation Officer's report is on record, which
reveals that the CIL has a family to look after. There are
members in his family. The CIL has no criminal
antecedents.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that it is a case which does not
attracts the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The best
interest to the CIL could be served, if the CIL is given in
the custody of his father. Accordingly, the revision
deserves to be allowed.
10. The revision is allowed. The impugned
judgments and orders are set aside.
11. The CIL be given into 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 their family members.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
03.01.2023
Sanjay
