Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 131 (UTT)

X v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-27

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Instant revision is preferred against the following:- (i) Order dated 16.12.2023, passed in Bail Application No. 4 of 2023, State vs. X, by the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur (for short, “JJ Board”). By it the bail application of the revisionist, who is a Child in Conflict with Law (for short, “the CIL”) has been rejected and; (ii) Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2024, passed in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 216 of 2023, X vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Juvenile Court/FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the appeal”). By which, order dated 16.12.2023 of the JJ Board has been upheld. The revisionist seeks bail. 2. According to the FIR, there was a dispute between the family of the informant and the family of the CIL with regard to money. On 06.10.2023, at 03:00 PM, the CIL along with the co-accused attacked the deceased due to which, he sustained injuries and subsequently, he died. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist had no role in the case and he had not been assigned any role. He has no criminal antecedent; his mother wants to take care of him. 4. Learned State counsel has produced the Social Investigation Report in the Court during the course of hearing. It is taken on record. He would submit that there is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the Social Investigation Report. 5. It is argued that the CIL has a family to look after; he is not a criminal; he may be given in the custody of his mother, so that he may stay with his family. 6. A CIL is always entitled to bail irrespective of the offence being bailable or non-bailable. The only rider is given under Section 12(1) proviso of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act”), according to which, a CIL may not be released on bail, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that his release may likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. The principles, which governs the Act are given under Section 3 of the Act. One of those principles defines the responsibility of biological family of the CIL. 7. The principles, which governs the Act are given under Section 3 of the Act. One of those principles defines the responsibility of biological family of the CIL. According to it, it is the primary responsibility of the biological family of a CIL to nurture, look after and take care of the CIL. 8. The CIL in the instant case, has family to look after. The Probation Officer’s report is on record, which reveals that the CIL has a family to look after. There are members in his family. The CIL has no criminal antecedents. 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case which does not attracts the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The best interest to the CIL could be served, if the CIL is given in the custody of his mother. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed. 10. The revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. 11. 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 also not contact either the witnesses or any of their family members.