A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act reveals
that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be
entitled to 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. The distinction between bailable
or non-bailable offence has been done away with in respect
of a juvenile. In other words, every juvenile is entitled to be
released on bail except in circumstances where his/her
release will bring him/her into association with any known
criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the
ends of justice. As per the Section 2 (12) of the Act, ‘child’
means a person who has not completed eighteen years of
age.” {Para 7}
8. Admittedly, the revisionist was about 17 years of
age at the time of incident. From the perusal of the FIR,
the revisionist was driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant point of time; it is a matter of evidence whether the
matter falls within the definition of Section 304A IPC or
Section 304 IPC. As per Section 12 of the Act, the bail can
be refused if there appears reasonable ground for believing
that the release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal. The word ‘known’
has not been used by the Parliament without purpose. By
use of the word ‘known’, the Parliament requires that the
Court must know the full particulars of the criminal with
whom the delinquent is likely to come into association. In
the case in hand, there is no such evidence on record
regarding the same; both the impugned orders are silent
about it; the bail of the delinquent was rejected simply on
the ground that the offence is heinous in nature while
Section 12 of the Act is silent about it.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the Courts below had erred in
law in not releasing the juvenile on bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.226 of 2021
Ayaan Ali Vs The State of Uttarakhand
Coram: Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Dated: 16.02.2022
This criminal revision is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun, District Dehradun in
Case Crime No.177 of 2021 as well as the judgment and
order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Addl. Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO)/F.T.C., Dehradun in
Criminal Appeal No.62/2021, ‘Ayaan Ali vs. State’.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as
learned Counsel for the State admitted that the revisionist
was a juvenile who is involved in connection with Case
Crime /FIR No.177/2021, under Sections 304, 338, 107,
201 IPC, registered at P.S. Shahaspur , Distt. Dehradun.
4. The revisionist, being a juvenile, moved the bail
application before the Juvenile Board Dehradun, which
was rejected vide order dated 17.08.2021. Aggrieved by it,
the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No.62/2021
before the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO)/F.T.C., Dehradun, which was also dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 02.09.2021. Hence, this
revision.
5. Admittedly, the revisionist was about 17 years at
the time of the incident. From a perusal of the order
passed by the Board, it appears that the sole ground, on
which the bail was rejected, is that the revisionist may
again commit an offence. In the present case, the bail has
been dismissed considering the gravity of offences alleged
to have been committed by the revisionist.
6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 deals with bail to a child
in conflict with law 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 nonbailable
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.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is
not released on bail under subsection (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.”
7. A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act reveals
that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be
entitled to 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. The distinction between bailable
or non-bailable offence has been done away with in respect
of a juvenile. In other words, every juvenile is entitled to be
released on bail except in circumstances where his/her
release will bring him/her into association with any known
criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the
ends of justice. As per the Section 2 (12) of the Act, ‘child’
means a person who has not completed eighteen years of
age.”
8. Admittedly, the revisionist was about 17 years of
age at the time of incident. From the perusal of the FIR,
the revisionist was driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant point of time; it is a matter of evidence whether the
matter falls within the definition of Section 304A IPC or
Section 304 IPC. As per Section 12 of the Act, the bail can
be refused if there appears reasonable ground for believing
that the release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal. The word ‘known’
has not been used by the Parliament without purpose. By
use of the word ‘known’, the Parliament requires that the
Court must know the full particulars of the criminal with
whom the delinquent is likely to come into association. In
the case in hand, there is no such evidence on record
regarding the same; both the impugned orders are silent
about it; the bail of the delinquent was rejected simply on
the ground that the offence is heinous in nature while
Section 12 of the Act is silent about it.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the Courts below had erred in
law in not releasing the juvenile on bail.
10. As a result, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The
orders, under challenge, are set aside. The juvenile in
conflict with law (revisionist) shall be enlarged on bail in
the aforesaid crime on furnishing two sureties and personal
bond of Rs.50,000/- to be executed by the grandfather 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
grandfather.
11. The grant of bail to the revisionist shall be
subject to the condition that his grandfather will take the
revisionist to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board once in
a month, and revisionist shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the concerned Juvenile Board without its prior permission,
and further, that the revisionist shall not try to contact or
influence the witnesses in any manner or tamper with the
evidence. In case of any violation of these conditions, the
respondent-State will be at liberty to approach the Juvenile
Board for cancellation of the bail of the revisionist.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
16.02.2022
No comments:
Post a Comment