Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
XYZ – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2023
Decided On : 21-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Kapri.
For the Respondent: Manisha Rana Singh.
For the Informant : P.S. Takuli.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the best interest of the child and family responsibility are paramount in bail decisions for children in conflict with the law.
Headnote:
Bail - Child in Conflict with Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 12, 3 - The court emphasized the principles of best interest and family responsibility in granting bail to a child in conflict with the law, highlighting the importance of rehabilitation over punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a child in conflict with the law, was involved in a scuffle during Holi, resulting in the death of the deceased. His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and affirmed by the Children Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the social investigation report was satisfactory, indicating no adverse conditions for the revisionist, and concluded that there were no grounds to deny bail.
Issues: Whether the revisionist, a child in conflict with the law, should be granted bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of best interest and family responsibility under the Juvenile Justice Act must guide decisions regarding bail for children in conflict with the law.
Result: The revision is allowed, and the impugned judgments are set aside, granting bail to the child.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:
(i) Order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 3 of 2023, State v. Gaurav Singh Martoliya (“the case”), by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pithoragarh (“JJB”) by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2023, Gaurav Singh Martoliya alias Golu vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the Children Court/Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 20.03.2023 passed in the case has been affirmed.
2. The revisionist is Child in Conflict with law (“CIL”). According to the FIR, on 05.03.2023, the revisionist along with the co-accused had gone to celebrate Holi festival. There they had a scuffle with the deceased Rajendra alias Raju Laspal. The FIR records that the deceased was pushed from the lodge of Rajendra Singh Rawat. He initially sustained serious injuries and thereafter succumbed to those injuries.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a CIL; he has a family back at home; the incident took at a spur of moment; it is not a case a premeditated offence; the revisionist is a student; no purpose would be served if he is confined in the observation home.
5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the revisionist along with the co-accused pushed the deceased in a valley.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that there are eyewitnesses of the evidence; there are sufficient evidences. She would also submit that the social investigation report of the revisionist is satisfactory.
7. It is a bail of a CIL. The bail in such matters is governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”). According to it, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the CIL shall be released on bail in each case, subject to certain riders. A CIL may be released on bail, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is likely to bring the CIL into association to any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
8. The Act ensures that the best interest of the child is to be maintained. Section 3 of the Act lays down the general principles, which are to be followed in the administration of the Act. Presumption of innocence is one of them. What is most important is principle of best interest and principle of family responsibility. According to the principle of family responsibility, the primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be. The Court may not go into the reasons for enacting such an Act. Understandably, it has been so enacted so as to ensure proper and overall growth of a child with dignity, affection and Care.
9. The social investigation report of the revisionist is on record. It reveals that the father of the revisionist is also in jail. His mother is a labourer. The revisionist has been studying in Class XI. They have regular source of income. Nothing adverse has been reported in the social investigation report.
10. Having considered the social investigation report and all other attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that in this case, there is no impediment in the grant of bail to the CIL. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed.
11. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside.
12. The CIL be given into the custody of his mother subject to production of two reliable sureties. The mother of the CIL shall also give an undertaking that she shall take care of the CIL and shall not allow him to contact any of the witnesses or their family members. The mother of the CIL shall also undertake that she shall a
