Uttarakhand High Court
Ab vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2023
AB ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Order dated 08.07.2022, passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board ("JJ Board"),
Nainital, in Case Crime No.78 of 2021. By it,
the bail application filed by the revisionist in
FIR No.78 of 2021, under Section 302 and
34 IPC, Police Station Bhowali, District
Nainital, has been rejected. And;
(ii) Order dated 29.09.2022, passed in Bail
Application No.86 of 2022, Rajesh Arya Vs.
State, by the Special Court,
POCSO/Additional District Judge/FTC
Haldwani. By it, the bail application of the
revisionist 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. According to the FIR, on 20.12.2021, the
revisionist along with the co-accused killed the brother of
the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that
the CIL has a family to look after; he is poor and the family
of the CIL will take care of him. It is argued that in totality,
the social investigation report is not against the CIL.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would
submit that, as per the social investigation report, the CIL
is in the bad company; he is taking drugs; earlier also, he
was detained in relation to commission of certain offences.
7. In the case of CIL, bail is a rule irrespective of
the offence having been classified as bailable or non
bailable. The only rider is given in Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 ("the Act"). According to it, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, a CIL may be released on bail, unless there are
reasonable grounds to believe that it is 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.
8. The governing principle of the Act is given under
Section 3 of the Act that principle of best interest is one of
the principles, which provides that 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. In fact, as per principle (v),
the primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection
of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive
or foster parents, as the case may be.
9. The allegations, in the instant case, are that the
CIL along with co-accused killed one person. That is on
merit. What is to be seen is the best interest of the child.
Keeping in view the fact that primary responsibility of
taking care of a child lies with the family, but the social
investigation report reveals that the CIL is a druggist. His
friends are druggist, and his friends have drawn him into
the world of crime. The social investigation report also
writes that earlier also, the CIL was detained in the
observation home. He had earlier also committed various
offences.
10. The social investigation report reflects a
scenario that the CIL, if released on bail, would again be in
the company of such friends, who have been drawing him
into the world of crime, who are drug addict. The CIL is
also alleged to be a drug addict, who has earlier also
committed offences.
11. Therefore, 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.)
05.03.2024
Ravi Bisht
