Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 297 (UTT)

AJAM (JUVENILE) v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-05-18

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2017
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 the Case Crime No. 66 of 2017, under Sections 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. 2. It has been alleged in the FIR that the revisionist committed a sexual offence with a twelve years old sister 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, Haridwar, which was rejected vide order dated 05.04.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned Special Judge POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was also rejected vide order dated 29.04.2017. 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 supervision 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.” 4. A bare perusal of clause (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 shows that normally bail should be given to a juvenile. It can only be refused if there is any relevant material available before the court concerned which shows that the release of the applicant would bring him in association with known criminals or will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. These are, however, not the grounds on which the application of the revisionist was rejected by the courts below. 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, which is not a correct way of adjudicating the present matter. 6. The revision is hence allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2017 and also the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar are set aside. 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.