Uttarakhand High Court
Nikhil Arya(Minor) ...Revisionists vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 April, 2022
Author: N.S. Dhanik
Bench: N.S. Dhanik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2021
Nikhil Arya(minor) ...Revisionists
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 4th April, 2022
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Haldwani, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2021, "Nikhil Arya through Natural Guardian/Mother Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand" whereby the Criminal Appeal of revisionist/Juvenile in conflict to law has been dismissed and confirmed the bail rejection order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Nainital.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist/juvenile, in conflict to law, is a minor boy of 17 years and is in custody in observation home, having no criminal history. He further pointed out the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act which clearly provides that when a 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 appear or brought before a Board, such person shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.PC or any law for 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 other fit person. The impugned orders passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board or the Appellate Court have neither mentioned the report of the Probation Officer nor the report of Probation Officer is 2 considered. Therefore, the judgment and orders passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are liable to be set aside and the revisionist entitled to be released on bail giving him in custody of his guardian.
5. After arguing at some length, he limits his prayer only to the extent that the present revision may be remanded back to learned Court below to decide the matter afresh after considering the report of the Probation Officer under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for its fair disposal.
6. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer sought for by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment and order dated 05.03.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board and order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge/F.T.C. Haldwani, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2021, "Nikhil Arya through Natural Guardian/Mother Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital with the following directions:
(i) The learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital is directed to consider all the facts and after considering the Probation Officer report under Section 12 of the Act, decide the matter afresh, as expeditiously as possible.
(ii) Fresh opportunity of hearing being heard shall be given by the learned Juvenile Justice Board to the parties concerned.
8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Nainital for compliance.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) 04.04.2022 SB