IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
R.C.Khulbe, J.
Dilawar @ Sonu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2020
Decided On : 10-06-2021
Juvenile Justice - Bail Application - Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) of Children Act - Section 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act - Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, sought bail after being involved in a case under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The bail was denied based on the fear of reoffending and the gravity of the alleged offence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the denial of bail to the juvenile was erroneous as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which entitles a juvenile to be released on bail except in specific circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of bail to the juvenile based on the fear of reoffending and the gravity of the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the denial of bail to the juvenile was not in accordance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which allows for bail except in specific circumstances.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the juvenile was granted bail with specific conditions, including custody by the father and regular reporting to the concerned Probation Officer.
JUDGMENT
R.C. Khulbe, J. - 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:-
"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 nonbailable 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."
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 d
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.