IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
R.C.Khulbe, J.
Subhan @ Subhaan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2021
Decided On : 23-10-2021
Juvenile - Bail - Juvenile Justice Act - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, sought bail after being involved in a case under Sections 363, 376 AB of IPC and u/s 5m/6 POCSO Act. The bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Board and the Criminal Appeal was also dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO). The revisionist was below about 13 years at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the bail was denied based on the gravity of the alleged offences, but the Act entitles every juvenile to be released on bail except in specific circumstances, which were not met in this case. The Court held that the lower courts erred in law by not releasing the juvenile on bail.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of bail to the juvenile based on the gravity of the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act entitles every juvenile to be released on bail except in specific circumstances, and the denial of bail should be based on reasonable grounds as specified in the Act.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the orders denying bail were set aside. The juvenile was granted bail with specific conditions, including regular reporting to the concerned Probation Officer and not leaving the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Board without permission.
JUDGMENT
R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Case Crime/FIR No.114/2021, as well as the judgment and order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.153/2021, Subhan @ Subhaan 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 Case Crime /FIR No.114/2021 under Sections 363, 376 AB of IPC and u/s 5m/6 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. ITI, Distt. U.S. Nagar.
4. The revisionist, being a juvenile, moved the bail application before the Juvenile Board Haridwar, which was rejected vide order dated 16.06.2021. Aggrieved by it, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.153/2021 before the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 06.07.2021. Hence, this revision.
5. Admittedly, the revisionist was below about 13 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 offences alleged to have been committed by the revisionist.
6. 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:-
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, 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:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."
7. 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 dang
AI
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.