Vikramjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

The revisionist in the present revision is a juvenile in conflicting with law. The criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing and

setting-aside the judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Court/F.T.C/Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in

Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2020, “Vikramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand†and judgment and order dated 19.10.2020 passed by learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Rurdrapur, District-Udham Singh Nagar in bail application no.57/2020 (Vikramjeet Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand), under

Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504 & 307 of IPC, registered at P.S. Khatima, District-Udham Singh Nagar.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.222 of 2020, relating to offences punishable

under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504 & 307 of IPC. The revisionist, being a juvenile, moved a bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board,

Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist preferred an

appeal before the learned Juvenile Court/F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which was also rejected vide order dated

04.11.2020.

Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist (Juvenile) has established before the learned Court below that

there appear no reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,

physical or physiological danger or that his release would not defeat the ends of justice but even then by the impugned judgments and orders the bail

has been rejected to the revisionist (Juvenile). He further submits the present revisionist is languishing in jail since 13.10.2020; has no criminal history

and the father of the revisionist is ready to keep revisionist with him and is ready to give undertaking. He also submits that the bail application of the

revisionist has been dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board alleging therein that the social report of juvenile in conflict with law/revisionist is normal,

but no control of family members upon the juvenile.

Learned State Counsel orally opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the courts below has

rightly been rejected the bail application of the revisionist.

In view of this Court, both the courts below have not appreciated the provision of law, which ought to have considered while considering the bail

application of a juvenile. The bail application of a juvenile has to be considered in view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2000, 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 a

person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force,

be release 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 arrested 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 fulfill 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.

A bare perusal of clause (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which shows that normally bail

should be given to a juvenile, and if there are relevant materials available before the Juvenile Justice Board or the court concerned to show that

release of the applicant bring him into association of known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would

defeat the ends of justice, the same can be denied by the court concerned. These are not the grounds in which the application of the revisionist was

rejected by the courts below. Simply the provision of law for refusing the bail application, as referred above have been narrated, without assigning any

reason as to why the bail should be refused and on what specific ground.

In the present case mere apprehension has been expressed by the courts below, without there being anything on record to show as to why such an

apprehension is being made. Consequently, the apprehension of the courts below is not justified.

The impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Court/F.T.C/Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in

Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2020, and also the judgment and order dated 19.10.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, District-

Udham Singh Nagar are set-aside. The revision is allowed.

Let the revisionist be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on furnishing two sureties and personal bond of the father/guardian of the revisionist to

the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned. It is further directed that the custody of the juvenile/revisionist shall be given to his

father.

It is, however, made clear that in case the revisionist misuses the bail or create temper, the respondent/State will be at liberty to apprise this Court

for cancellation of his bail.