Juvenile �X� Through His Mother vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Revision has been preferred against the order dated 04.03.2021, passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO)/ Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2021, whereby, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order dated 05.11.2020, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital, by which, the bail application of the revisionist was rejected. Revisionist is detained under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the First Information Report No.172 of 2020, registered at police station Kathgodam, District Nainital.

The First Information Report was lodged by the mother of the deceased expressing suspicion that the revisionist along with the other named person had committed the murder of her daughter. One knife was recovered at the pointing out of the present revisionist. The clothes worn by the revisionist at the time of the incident and the said knife were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned AGA for the State.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the present matter rests on the circumstantial evidence. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the revisionist. FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution. Revisionist is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar. He is detained since 22.08.2020, and, he has no criminal history.

On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, has opposed the Revision. However, he has fairly submitted that the FSL’s report does not support the case of the prosecution.

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.”

There is nothing on record to indicate or suggest that the revisionist was involved in any other unacceptable activity. Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, has submitted that as per report of the Probation Officer, Nainital, behavior and conduct of the revisionist is good.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the present revision may be allowed.

Consequently, the present Criminal Revision (No.142 of 2021) is allowed. The order dated 05.11.2020, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital, and, order dated 04.03.2021, passed by Appellate Court are set aside.

Let the revisionist, who is detained since 22.08.2020, be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond of his mother/ guardian with two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital, subject to the condition that the 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.