Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 452 (UTT)

GOLU MASIH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-09-15

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The revisionist in the present revision is a juvenile in conflicting with law. He is involved in an F.I.R. No. 192 of 2015, under Sections 377/506 of I.P.C., Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act and 3(i)(iii)(x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. It has been alleged in the FIR that the revisionist committed a sexual offence with a six years old child of the complainant and hence the First Information Report has been filed against him under the aforesaid sections. The revisionist, being a juvenile, moved a bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was rejected vide order dated 12.08.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was also rejected vide order dated 28.08.2015. 3. In view of this Court both the courts below have not appreciated the provision of law, which ought to have considered while considering the bail application of a juvenile. The bail application of a juvenile has to be considered in view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which reads as under:- “12. Bail of juvenile- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be release on bail with or without surety [or place under the supervisi0on of a Probation Officer or under the case of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not release on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (2) When such person having been arrested is not release on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not release on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” (emphasis supplied) 4. A bare perusal of clause (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which shows that normally bail should be given to a juvenile, and if there are relevant materials available before the Juvenile Justice Board or the court concerned to show that release of the applicant bring him into association of known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, the same can be denied by the court concerned. These are not the grounds in which the application of the revisionist was rejected by the courts below. Simply the provision of law for refusing the bail application, as referred above have been narrated, without assigning any reason as to why the bail should be refused and on what specific ground. 5. In the present case mere apprehension has been expressed by the courts below, without there being anything on record to show as to why such an apprehension is being made. Consequently, the apprehension of the courts below is not justified. 6. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2015 and also the order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are set aside. The revision is allowed. 7. Let the revisionist be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on furnishing two sureties and personal bond of the father/guardian of the revisionist to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned. It is further directed that the custody of the juvenile/revisionist shall be given to his father. 8. The revision is allowed. 7. Let the revisionist be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on furnishing two sureties and personal bond of the father/guardian of the revisionist to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned. It is further directed that the custody of the juvenile/revisionist shall be given to his father. 8. It is, however, made clear that in case the revisionist misuses the bail or create temper, the respondent/State will be at liberty to apprise this Court for cancellation of his bail.