CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Sameer Khan (Minor) vs State of Uttarakhand & another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 19 December 2017 · Citation: (2017) 12 UK CK 0034

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-376>Section 376</a> - Punishment for rape · <a href=14287>Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012</a>, <a href=14287-6>Section 6</a>, <a href=14287-14>Section 14</a>, <a href=14287-13>Section 13</a>, <a href=14287-5>Section 5(g)</a> - · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 12
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
384 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 354 words
1.

The revisionist is admittedly a juvenile who is in conflict with law and is presently an accused in a Case Crime No.456 of 2017, which has been registered under Section 376 of IPC and 5(g)/6 and 13/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar.

2.

The victim is allegedly of 16 years of age and the present revisionist being a juvenile is also of 16 years of age. The bail application of the present revisionist has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar vide order dated 06.11.2017. His appeal against the order dated 06.11.2017 has also been rejected by the appellate court vide order dated 30.11.2017. Hence, the present revision before this Court.

3.

Consideration for grant of bail in the case of a juvenile who is in conflict with law is given under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, where normally the bail has to be granted and the only condition where the bail can be refused is when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of a juvenile is likely to bring him into association with an known criminal or expose the said

person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person''s release would defeat the ends of justice.

4.

In this case merely an apprehension has been raised by the Board and the appellate court. There is nothing on record to show that this apprehension is based on any material.

5.

Therefore, the rejection orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court do not seem to the correct. The two orders dated 06.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar and Special Judge POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, respectively are hereby set aside.

6.

The criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist be released on bail on furnishing of a reliable surety of any of his parents, of an equal amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned. It is made clear that Juvenile Justice Board shall ensure that the revisionist be handed over to his parents.