Taimur (minor) vs State of Uttarakhand

V.K. Bist, J.

The criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO/

Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2018, ‘Taimur v. State of Uttarakhand’ whereby the order dated 11.05.2018

passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar has been affirmed. It has also been prayed that the applicant/ revisionist be granted bail in Case Crime

No. 417 of 2018, under Section 377 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4, 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali

Laksar, District Haridwar.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 417 of 2018, under Section 377 of

I.P.C. and Section 3/4, 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The revisionist moved the bail application before the learned

Juvenile Justice Board; but, the same was rejected. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the judgment and orders passed by the Courts

below are based on conjectures and surmises. He also submitted that the Courts below have passed the impugned judgment and orders without

applying the judicial mind and also did not follow the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act for the bail of juvenile.

Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides that 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 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.

Thus, as per Section 12 (1) of the Act, the revisionist shall be subject to the condition mentioned in the Act. In the present case, admittedly, the

revisionist is a Juvenile. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the family members of the revisionist have no criminal history. Parents of

the revisionist are ready to keep revisionist with them and are ready to give undertaking.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Special

Judge, POCSO/ Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2018 and order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice

Board, Haridwar are set aside.

Let revisionist Taimur be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount by his natural guardian

and father to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO/ Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. His father shall also submit an undertaking

that the Juvenile will remain in his custody.