Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
X - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 273 of 2024
Decided On : 11-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Dinesh Chandra Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act must guide bail decisions, prioritizing the child's best interests and rehabilitation.
Headnote:
Bail - Child in Conflict with Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 12, 15, 18, 19 - The court emphasized the principles of the Act, particularly the best interest of the child, and the conditions under which bail may be granted to a child in conflict with law.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a 17-year-old, was accused of molesting a 15-year-old neighbor and was in judicial custody. His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and later by the POCSO court, leading to a fresh application before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's conduct was satisfactory, and there were no adverse findings in the Social Investigation Report. The court noted that the applicant deserved bail under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Issues: Whether the applicant, a child in conflict with law, should be granted bail despite the serious allegations against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even if a child is tried as an adult, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act regarding bail must still be applied, emphasizing the best interest of the child.
Result: The bail application is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0317 of 2022, under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Haldwani, District- Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the informant along with her family was staying in a rented accommodation. The applicant was also their neighbourer. The applicant used to molest the niece of the informant. The family members of the applicant were told about it, but nothing changed. When it was detected that the victim was pregnant for six months, she revealed that it is the applicant, who established physical relations with the victim 4/5 times, and threatened her to life in case she reveals it to anyone. The victim was 15 years of age.
4. The applicant was a Child in Conflict with Law (“CIL”). He moved an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Haldwani, Nainital (“JJ Board”), which was rejected on 22.07.2022. It so happened that on 07.10.2022, the JJ Board conducted preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) and passed an order that the CIL should be tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act. Thereafter, another bail application was filed by the CIL, where the trial was transferred in the court of Special Judge (POCSO)/Special Judge/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital. By the order dated 28.10.2022, the bail application of the CIL had been rejected. Now the instant bail application has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that the CIL has not committed any offence; in the observation home, the CIL has made great paintings; the CIL’s conduct with the neighbourers is quite well; the CIL is a studious child and he did not flee from justice; the CIL has no criminal history; the CIL had also appeared in the examination after seeking permission from the court; the DNA examination is doubtful.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that this bail application has to be decided under Section 12 of the Act. She would submit that as per the Social Investigation Report, the conduct of the child has been found satisfactory.
7. A CIL shall be released on bail irrespective of the offence being classified as bailable or non bailable, subject to the riders, as given in the proviso to sub Section 1 to Section 12 of the Act.
8. The CIL, in the instant case, was initially produced before the JJ Board. His bail application was rejected by the JJ Board. Thereafter, the JJ Board conducted preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act and passed an order that there is a need for trial of the CIL as an adult. It is, thereafter, the trial was transferred to the POCSO court, which further rejected the bail application. The order rejecting the bail by the JJ Board has not been appealed against. Even the order passed by the POCSO court has not been challenged, as such. A fresh bail application has been filed before this Court. But, in view of Section 8(2) of the Act, this Court can entertain this matter as a bail application produced before the JJ Board. Section 8(2) of the Act reads as follows:-
“8. Powers, functions and responsibilities of the Board.—(1) .........................................................
(2) The powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children’s Court, when the proceedings come before them under section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise.
(3) ............................................................................”
9. Even after the CIL is transferred for trial as an adult, various precautions have been given under the Act so as to protect the rights of the child. In fact, Section 19(2) of the Act provides that after final order, an individual care plan shall be prepared for such CIL.
