IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dilawar @ Sonu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.280 of 2020
Decided on : 10-05-2021
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 and 102 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - POCSO Act - Sections 3/4 - Offence of Rape - Offence committed by Juvenile - Bail Application - Revisionist being a juvenile moved bail application before Juvenile Board, which was rejected vide its order - Aggrieved by it revisionist preferred Criminal Bail Appeal before Addl. Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order.
Finding of the court: Admittedly revisionist was less than 18 years of age at time of incident. As per Section 12 of Act, bail can be refused if there appears reasonable ground for believing that release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal. The word ‘known’ has not been used by legislature without purpose. By use of word ‘known’, Legislature requires that Court must know full particulars of criminal with whom delinquent is likely to come into association. In the case in hand, there is no such evidence on record regarding same - Court has no hesitation in holding that Courts below had erred in law in not releasing the juvenile on bail. Since father of revisionist, accordingly juvenile in conflict with law can be given in his custody.
Result: Criminal Revision is allowed
JUDGMENT :
This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) of Children Act, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun in Bail Application Crime No. 187/2020, State Vs. Dilawar @ Sonu as well as the judgment and order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC/Special Judge (POCSO) Dehradun in Crl. Bail Appeal No.100/2020, Dilawar @ Sonu Vs. State.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Counsel for the State admitted that the revisionist is a juvenile who is involved in connection with Crime No.187/2020 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The revisionist being a juvenile moved the bail application before the Juvenile Board Dehradun, which was rejected vide its order dated 15.09.2020. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred Criminal Bail Appeal No.100/2020 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2020.
4. Admittedly, the revisionist was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. From a perusal of the order passed by the Board, it appears that the sole ground on which the bail was denied is that the revisionist may again commit an offence. In the present case, the bail has been dismissed considering the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the revisionist.
5. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 deals with bail to a child in conflict with law which reads as under:-
6. A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act reveals that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be entitled to be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The distinction between bailable or non-bailable offence has been done away with in respect of a juvenile. In other words, every juvenile is entitled to be released on bail except in circumstances where his/her release will bring him/her into association with any known criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.