Back
2023 Supreme(UK) 386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
X – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2023, Bail Application No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 01-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mani Kumar.
For the Respondents: B.P.S. Mer, Pranav Saxena.
The main legal point established is that for a Child In Conflict With Law, bail is a rule, and all offenses are bailable unless specific reasons exist to deny it, as mandated by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Headnote:
Bail - Child-In-Conflict with Law - The court allowed the revisionist's bail application, emphasizing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for Child In Conflict With Law unless there are specific reasons to deny it. The court considered the principles of care, nurture, and protection of the child, and the absence of adverse records against the CIL in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a Child-In-Conflict with Law, sought bail after being accused of firing at another individual during a fight. The injured party opposed the bail, citing concerns of evidence tampering and threats from the revisionist's family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CIL was entitled to bail, considering the absence of adverse records, the spur of the moment nature of the incident, and the CIL's humble background.
Issues: The main issue was whether the CIL should be granted bail despite the allegations and opposition from the injured party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for Child In Conflict With Law unless specific reasons exist to deny it. The court also considered the principles of care, nurture, and protection of the child.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The CIL was granted bail and given into the custody of his father, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. The challenge in this revision is made to the following:
(i) Order dated 15.12.2022, passed in Bail Application No. 119 of 2022, State vs. X by the Juvenile Justice Board (“J.J. Board”), Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the bail application of the revisionist filed by his father has been rejected.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 10.01.2023, passed in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 290 of 2022, CIL vs. State of Uttarakhand by the court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, POCSO, Udham Singh Nagar (“the bail appeal”). By it, the bail appeal filed by the legal guardian/father of the revisionist has been dismissed.
2. The revisionist is a Child-In-Conflict with Law (“the CIL”). He seeks bail also.
3. According to the FIR, on 13.11.2022, at 9:30 in the morning, the CIL, the injured and his brother were playing. Subsequently, ensued in a fight ensued with the injured. In that process, according to the FIR, the CIL somehow fired at the injured with a country made pistol, due to which, he sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that CIL was a student of Class IXth. After his arrest, he could not joint his classes, therefore, his name has been removed from the school. It is submitted that the CIL has no criminal antecedents. Even there is no criminal history of any of his family members. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the injured would submit that if released on bail, the CIL may tamper with the evidence. They are neighbours; the family members of the CIL are threatening the informant and his family members to settle the dispute; it is a case of firing; therefore, it is case of denial of bail.
6. Learned State counsel would adopts the arguments as advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the injured.
7. It is a case pertaining to the CIL. For a child with conflict with law bail is a rule. In fact, for him, all the offences are bailable. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) commands that the Child In Conflict With Law shall be released on bail unless there are reasons to do so. The reasons have been given under proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act. According to it, such CIL shall not be released on bail, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
8. The principles, which govern the provisions of the Act under Section 3 of the Act. According to one of its principles, the primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adopted or some foster, as the case may be.
9. Admittedly, the incident took place in a spur of moment suddenly when the CIL and other were playing including the injured. The Probation Officer report does not record anything adverse against the CIL. It records that the CIL was then studying in Class IXth. His family has a very humble background.
10. Having considered, the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view the CIL is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
11. The revision is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.
12. The CIL be given into 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.
