X, Child In Conflict With Law Through His Father vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The proposed Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short, “Act, 2015”), has been preferred by the child in conflict with law through his father challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2023, passed by learned Children Court/FTC/ Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Bail Appeal No.46 of 2023, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal and affirmed the order dated 14.03.2023, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (in short, “Board”) in Enquiry No.61 of 2023, by which, the Board had rejected the bail application of the revisionist, filed through his father, under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in respect of Case Crime No.823 of 2022, registered at police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Revisionist is detained in the observation home for the offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, appearing for the revisionist, contended that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present matter. As per the report of the District Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, the conduct and behavior of the revisionist are normal. Nothing has been found against the revisionist to indicate that he is involved in any unacceptable activities.

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, further submitted that the revisionist should go to the school and for the said purpose, the father of the revisionist may be directed.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he has conceded that as per the report of the Probation Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, nothing was found against the revisionist to indicate that he was involved in any criminal activities.

Admit.

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 or a place of safety, as the case may be 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 the case, this Court is of the view that the present revision may be allowed.

Consequently, the present Criminal Revision is allowed. The judgment dated 27.03.2023, passed by learned Appellate Court and order dated 14.03.2023, passed by Board are set aside.

Let the revisionist, who is detained in the observation home, be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond by his father with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The father of the revisionist shall furnish an undertaking that the revisionist will pursue his study.

(ii) The father of the revisionist shall furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the revisionist will not be permitted to come into contact with any known criminal.