Juvenile 'X' Through His Mother vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “Act, 2015”) against the judgment dated 12.04.2023, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2023, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order dated 01.04.2023, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital, by which, the Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist, filed through his mother under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in respect of Case Crime No.68 of 2023, registered at police station Lalkua, District Nainital. Revisionist is detained in the observation home since 22.03.2023 for the offence under Sections 364, 392, 323 and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

Present Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist – juvenile through his mother.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that informant was going to visit Nanakmatta with her brother and friends on 19.03.2023. Vivek Verma, co-accused, was following them on a motorcycle along with two other unknown persons. They snatched the informant’s camera and abducted her brother. The said information was given by the informant to the police. FIR was registered at 16:28 hrs. on 19.03.2023 against Vivek Verma and unknown persons. On the same day, the abducted person and the said camera were recovered.

According to the prosecution, at the time of the recovery, the present revisionist was also present along with four other co-accused persons. However, the present revisionist managed to escape from the place of recovery. The present revisionist was identified by one Pradeep Pilkhwal, Constable, in the light of a torch.

Revisionist’s appeal and his bail application have been dismissed on the ground that Pradeep Pilkhwal, Constable, had identified him in the light of a torch, revisionist had snatched the camera and a case under Section 307 and Section 324 IPC is pending against him.

Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned AGA assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, contended that the revisionist is not named in the First Information Report. He was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He had not snatched informant’s camera. Police arrested him on 22.03.2023 only on the basis of presumption. There is nothing on record to show that revisionist was involved in the alleged incident. The said camera was recovered from the possession of the co-accused Vivek Verma. Revisionist is a student of Class XIIth and his father is serving in the Indian Army, and, he has been granted bail in First Information Report No.630 of 2022, registered under Section 307 and Section 324 IPC.

On the other hand, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA has opposed the present Criminal Revision. However, she has submitted that the said camera was snatched by one co-accused and the said camera was recovered from the possession of Vivek Verma.

Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, has further submitted that all the co-accused persons including juveniles have been granted bail.

Undisputedly, the revisionist was juvenile at the time of the alleged offence. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 deals with bail to juvenile, which reads as under:-

“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law:- (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.”

While implementing the provisions of the Act, 2015, the Court shall be governed by the principle of best interest i.e. all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the interest of the child. The object of the Act, 2015 is reformative and not further degradation.

Having considered the submissions made at the bar and in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the present revision may be allowed.

Consequently, the present Criminal Revision (No.258 of 2023) is allowed. The order dated 01.04.2023, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital and judgment dated 12.04.2023, passed by learned Appellate Court are set aside.

Let the revisionist, who is detained in the observation home, be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian/ mother with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Natural guardian/ mother will furnish an undertaking that the revisionist will pursue his study.

(ii) Natural guardian/ mother will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the revisionist will not be permitted to come into contact with any known criminal.

In Shilpa Mittal vs. N.C.T. Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the identity of the Juvenile shall not be disclosed. Therefore, Registry is directed to remove the name of the revisionist juvenile from the record of the present case.