Uttarakhand High Court
X vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 November, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1989 of 2024
X ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Shankar Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Crime No. 44
of 2020, under Section 376(A) (B), 506 IPC and Section 5/6
of the protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(Special Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2020), Police Station
Premnagar, Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 16.03.2020, the
applicant took the victim with him and raped her.
4. The applicant was a child in conflict with law
("CIL"). Initially, the Juvenile Justice Board released him in
the custody of his mother. Subsequently, after preliminary
assessment, the CIL was tried as an adult. He did not
appear during the course of hearing on 13.08.2024,
therefore, NBW was issued against him. When the applicant
applied for bail, he was denied bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the applicant had gone out for his earnings; he is a
labourer; his exemption could not be filed; his father wants
to take him into custody, therefore, he may be released on
bail. Learned counsel would refer to the judgment of this
Court passed in First Bail Application No. 273 of 2024, in
which this Court has observed that even if a CIL is tried as
an adult, the bail shall be governed by the provisions of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
("the Act").
6. Learned State Counsel admits that the bail
application of the applicant has to be decided under Section
12 of the Act. She would submit that the applicant has
absented himself for more than one occasions, therefore, if
released it may defeat the ends of justice.
7. The bail to a CIL may be denied if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to
bring him into association with any known criminal or
expose him to any 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
child shall be that of the biological or adoptive or foster
parents, as the case may be.
9. Last time, NBW was issued against the applicant
on 13.08.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that thereafter, the next date, on 03.09.2024, he was
present, but he could not appear in the court room; the next
day, he moved an application for recalling of his NBW; but
his father moved an application for discharge as surety. It is
argued that now the father of the applicant wants his
custody.
10. Initially, as a child, the applicant was given in
the custody of his mother. On 13.08.2024, last time
warrants were issued against him. It is the case of the
applicant that on the next date, i.e. on 03.09.2024, he was
present in the court and on 04.09.2024, he moved an
application for recall of the warrants but his father moved
an application for his discharge as surety. The fact remains
that now the father of the applicant seeks his custody.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the CIL be given in 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)
20.11.2024
Avneet/
