Allowed

Dharmendra Singh (Minor) v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Mar 2021CRLR/40/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision against bail rejection orders for a juvenile. Finding no evidence of association with known criminals, the Court set aside the orders and granted bail with specific conditions including custody by the mother.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders set aside; juvenile enlarged on bail with two sureties and personal bond of Rs. 25,000; custody directed to be given to the mother.

Dharmendra Singh (Minor) Vs State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2021

¶3

Dharmendra Singh (minor) …..Revisionist Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

¶4

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶5

Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

¶6

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2021, passed by the learned F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) in Criminal Bail Appeal No. 2 of 2021, Dharmendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand , as well as the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, in bail application no. 79 of 2020 (FIR No. 324 of 2020) State vs. Dharmendra Singh.

¶7

Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile who is involved in crime no. 324 of 2020, under section 8/20/60 of N.D. P.S. Act and under section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶8

The revisionist is juvenile in conflict with law. He is involved in the aforesaid crime. He, being a juvenile, moved bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 19.12.2020. Being Aggrieved, the revisionist preferred appeal no. 2 of 2021 before the appellate court which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2021.

¶9

Admittedly, the revisionist was less than 18 years at the time of the incident. From the perusal of the order passed by the Board it appears that the sole ground on which the bail was denied is that the revisionist may again commit an offence. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 deals with bail in conflict with law which reads as under:-

¶10

“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 (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:

¶11

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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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

¶14

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.

¶15

(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. ”

¶16

As per the above section, the bail can be refused if there appears reasonable ground that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal. The word “known” has not been defined. By use of the word “known” the Parliament requires that the Court must know the full particulars of the criminals with whom the applicant/revisionist is likely to come into association. In the present matter there is no such evidence on record regarding the same.

¶17

In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the courts below had committed mistake in not releasing the juvenile on bail.

¶18

Smt. Gurmej Kaur is mother of the revisionist (juvenile). Accordingly, the juvenile in conflict with law can be given in the custody of natural guardian “mother/father”.

¶19

As a result, the revision is allowed. The orders under challenge are set aside. The juvenile in conflict with law shall be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on two sureties and personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- to be executed by the mother/ father of the

¶20

juvenile in conflict with law to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board. It is further directed that the custody of the juvenile/revisionist shall be given to his mother/ father. The mother/father of the revisionist shall file an affidavit along with personal bond to the effect that during enquiry/trial, the juvenile shall remain in his/her custody and control and mother/father will take the revisionist to the concerned Probation Officer once a month and the revisionist shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board without prior permission of the Board.

¶21

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 02.03.2021

¶22

Parul

Dharmendra Singh (Minor) v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh (Minor) v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayyub Vs State of Uttarkahand

Satyam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rafiq Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pushpendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Komal Singh (Minor) Vs State of Uttarakhand