Uttarakhand High Court
X vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 673 of 2022
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
X ...........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision is preferred against the
following:-
(i) Order dated 03.08.2022, passed in Bail
Application No.67 of 2022, State vs. X, by the
court of Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh
Nagar (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 03.09.2022, passed
in Criminal Bail Appeal No.183 of 2022, X vs.
State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Children
Court/FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar (for short,
"the appeal"). By which, order dated 03.08.2022
of the JJ Board has been upheld. The CIL seeks
bail.
2. According to the FIR, the CIL enticed the victim,
a young girl of 13 years of age from her house on
29.06.2022 at 09:00 in the morning.
3. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that
the statement of the victim is contradictory as given during
investigation under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). The
Probation Officer's report does not reveal anything against
the CIL.
4. Learned State counsel would submit that the
victim has supported the prosecution case under Section
164 of the Code, but he would submit that the Probation
Officer's report does not reveal anything against the CIL.
5. It is also argued that the CIL has a family to
look after; he is not a criminal; he may be given in the
custody of his mother, so that he may stay with his family.
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 mother. 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 mother
subject to production of two reliable sureties. The mother of
the CIL shall also give an undertaking that she shall take
care of the CIL and shall not allow him to contact any of the
witnesses or their family members. The mother of the CIL
shall also undertake that she shall also not contact either
the witnesses or any of their family members.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.01.2023
Sanjay
