Uttarakhand High Court
X vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 February, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.55 of 2024
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2022
X ...........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ..........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the
revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision is preferred against the
following:-
(i) Order dated 16.12.2023, passed in Bail
Application No. 4 of 2023, State vs. X, by the
court of Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur (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 10.01.2024, passed
in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 216 of 2023, X vs.
State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Juvenile
Court/FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar (for short, "the appeal"). By which,
order dated 16.12.2023 of the JJ Board has
been upheld. The revisionist seeks bail.
2. According to the FIR, there was a dispute
between the family of the informant and the family of the
CIL with regard to money. On 06.10.2023, at 03:00 PM,
the CIL along with the co-accused attacked the deceased
due to which, he sustained injuries and subsequently, he
died.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist had no role in the case and he had not
been assigned any role. He has no criminal antecedent; his
mother wants to take care of him.
4. Learned State counsel has produced the Social
Investigation Report in the Court during the course of
hearing. It is taken on record. He would submit that there
is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the Social
Investigation Report.
5. 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 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.)
27.02.2024
Sanjay
