Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
X - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.969 of 2023
Decided On : 18-04-2024
For the revisionist :Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder
Bail to a child in conflict with the law is a right under the Juvenile Justice Act unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, ensuring the child's welfare and societal interests are balanced.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5j(ii)/6 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Bail application denied by Juvenile Justice Board, upheld by Child Court - The revisionist is a child in conflict with the law - Victim's statement supports prosecution but does not reflect adverse findings against CIL - Principles of best interest and family responsibility clearly support granting bail under specified conditions - Bail denied only if reasonable grounds exist under the Act. (Paras 7, 8, 9)
(B) Bail - Granting bail to a child in conflict with the law is a right unless there are justifiable reasons against it, such as risk to societal interests or the child’s welfare. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist, a child in conflict with law, faces charges related to establishing physical relations with a 16-year-old which resulted in her pregnancy. Bail was denied by the JJB, claiming the prosecution's case was upheld by the victim's testimony.
Findings of Court:
This Court found no barriers to granting bail, determining that the case facts do not impede such a decision as the social investigation report is satisfactory and does not show adverse findings against the revisionist.
Issues: The primary issue was whether reasonable grounds existed to deny bail to the child in conflict with the law, given the nature of the offences and supporting testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that established principles under the Juvenile Justice Act mandate granting bail in the absence of compelling evidence against it, particularly where the relationship between the child and victim was consensual and supported by a satisfactory investigation report.
Result: Revision allowed; orders set aside.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-
(i) The order dated 31.10.2020, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Champawat (“JJB”) in Bail Application No. 05 of 2023, X Vs. State, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 5j(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”), Police Station Lohaghat, District Champawat of the revisionist has been rejected and;
(ii) The judgment and order dated 16.11.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2023, by the Child Court/Special Session Judge, Champawat (“the Appeal”). By it, the appeal of the revisionist has been rejected and the order passed by the JJB has been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file.
3. The revisionist is a child in conflict with law (CIL).
4. According to the FIR, the CIL established physical relations with victim, a young girl of 16 years, due to which, she got pregnant. Her foetus was aborted.
5. Learned counsel for the CIL would submit that the CIL is in jail for more than six months. The prosecution story is not believable.
6. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).
7. The revisionist is a CIL. The bail for a CIL, all the offences are bailable irrespective of its being classified bailable or non bailable in the Code. A CIL is entitled to bail subject to riders as given under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”). Bail to the CIL may be denied if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that it is likely to bring the association to any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The principles that govern the Act are given under Section 3 of the Act. The principle of best interest, the principle of family responsibility and the principle of innocence are some of them. According to the one of the principles, 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.
8. The victim in the instant case has been examined under Section 164 of the Code. She and the applicant, both were in the relationship. The victim got pregnant. The social investigation report is on record. It does not reveal anything adverse against the CIL. It is satisfactory. It also records that the CIL and the victim both were in the relationship.
9. Having considered, the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that in this case, there is no impediment in grant of bail to the CIL. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed.
10. The revision is allowed. The judgment and orders are set aside.
11. 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.
