Uttarakhand High Court
X vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2024
With
IA No.2 of 2024 for Bail Application
X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. M.K. Ray and Ms. Mahua Ray, Advocates for the
revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the
informant.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Order dated 10.01.2024, passed in Second
Bail Application No.16 of 2024, State Vs. X,
by the Juvenile Justice Board ("JJ Board"),
Haridwar. By it, the bail application of the
revisionist has been rejected in Case Crime
No.598 of 2023, under Sections 305, 509
IPC and Section 13/14 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Police Station Kotwali Gangnaher, District
Haridwar. And;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 27.01.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024, X
versus State and Another, by the court of
Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appeal
has been rejected.
2. The revisionist is a Child in Conflict with Law
("the CIL"). He seeks bail also.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. The deceased, a young girl of 14 years of age,
was found missing from her house from 22.10.2023.
Subsequently, her dead body was recovered. The report
was lodged by her father. It was revealed that, in fact, the
revisionist had made an obscene video of the deceased.
They were classmates and the revisionist had circulated
that video amongst the students. The deceased could not
bear it and committed suicide.
5. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that
the CIL has a family to look after; his father and mother
both are working; they will take care of the revisionist;
revisionist is a young child; it would affect his future
deeply. Therefore, he may be given into custody of his
mother.
6. Learned counsel for the informant would submit
that the father of the revisionist has a criminal history; the
witnesses have stated and confirmed that it is the
revisionist, who circulated the obscene videos.
7. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
social investigation report of the revisionist is not
satisfactory. It shows that he is not in good company. He
has been in such deviant behaviour in the past also, which
is reported by the school also.
8. The revisionist is a CIL. To such CIL, every
offence is bailable, and such CIL is entitled to bail
irrespective of the offence being classified as bailable or
non-bailable. But, it is subject to a rider, as given in sub-
Section 1 of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act"). Bail may be
denied if there appears reasonable grounds for believing
that his release would likely to bring the CIL into
association to any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or his release
would defeat the ends of justice. The principles that
govern the provisions of the Act are given under Section
3 of the Act. In fact, the primary responsibility of care,
nurture and protection of the child is that of the biological
family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be..
One of the principles that govern the provisions of the Act
is the Principle of Best Interest, as given under Section 3(v)
of the Act. According to it, all decisions regarding the child
shall be based on the primary consideration that they are
in the best interest of the child and to help the child to
develop full potential.
9. In such matters, social investigation report has
great bearing. According to the social investigation report,
the revisionist is involved in indiscipline of the school. He
was warned from the school also. He is not in a good
company. He requires strict discipline and routine. The
social investigation report reveals that in case of release,
any untoward incident may not be ruled out.
10. The Probation Officer has recommended for a
psychological test of the revisionist. The Court had directed
for it also. According to such report, after examination of
the revisionist, the findings are suggestive of, "Introvert
Personality traits and Child Behaviour Checklist was
applied which showed anxiety state in child." A report
was also sought from the school of the revisionist.
According to the school report, the revisionist was very
irregular in attending classes during the year and had only
30 per cent attendance. He was suspended in the
beginning of August 2023, due to prolonged absence
without information; he was involved in verbal arguments
and physical fights with other students on number of
occasions. It was also alleged that the revisionist has also
made a fake Instagram ID of a teacher, though it could not
be verified. The school reports reveal that the revisionist
has also been known for using abusive language. It is
recommended that he needs significant improvement
discipline and his parents have been kept informed also.
11. Having considered the social investigation
report, the medical examination report, the report from the
school, this Court is of the view that the best interest of the
child would be served if he is not granted bail. If he is
released on bail, it would definitely defeat the ends of
justice. The court below has rightly rejected the bail
application. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be
dismissed.
12. The revision is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.04.2024
Ravi Bisht
