X vs State Of Uttarakhand

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)

Present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Juvenile Judge/District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2026, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board has been dismissed. The revisionist had also sought the benefit of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that while declining the benefit of bail, the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned appellate court have not properly considered the statutory mandate contained in Section 12 of the Act. She would submit that none of the circumstances contemplated under the proviso to Section 12 of the Act have been found against the revisionist. She would further submit that the Social Investigation Report does not disclose any circumstance indicating that the release of the revisionist would bring him into association with any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would further submit that the victim herself as well as her mother, in their statements recorded during the proceedings, have stated that the victim was major at the time of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that, according to the first school certificate of the victim, her age was about 16 years at the relevant time. She would submit that these aspects may be considered by the competent authority at the appropriate stage, but for the purposes of bail, the statutory parameters under Section 12 of the Act are required to be applied. She would further submit that Section 12 of the Act creates a statutory preference in favour of release of a child alleged to be in conflict with law, subject only to the exceptions specifically carved out in the proviso thereto. She would submit that the learned courts below have not recorded any specific finding bringing the case of the revisionist within any of the said exceptions.

Per contra, learned State Counsel would oppose the revision and submit that the allegations against the revisionist are serious in nature. However, on being confronted with the Social Investigation Report/Probation Officer’s report, he would fairly submit that the said report does not disclose any circumstance which would disentitle the revisionist from the benefit of Section 12 of the Act.

Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that Section 12 of the Act provides that a child alleged to be in conflict with law, whether apprehended with or without bail, shall ordinarily 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, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force.

The proviso to Section 12 of the Act carves out limited exceptions where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of such child is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

In the present case, the learned courts below, while declining the benefit of bail to the revisionist, have not recorded any specific and cogent finding bringing his case within any of the exceptions contemplated under the proviso to Section 12 of the Act. The seriousness or gravity of the allegation, by itself, cannot substitute the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 12 of the Act. The Social Investigation Report also does not indicate any circumstance suggesting that the release of the revisionist would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Rather, the report indicates the need for proper care, supervision, guidance and rehabilitation of the revisionist. It is also relevant to notice that the victim and her mother have stated during the proceedings that the victim was major at the time of the alleged incident, whereas the first school certificate placed on record indicates her age to be about 16 years at the relevant time. This aspect is a matter to be considered by the competent authority at the appropriate stage in accordance with law and, therefore, no observation is being made by this Court on the merits of the said issue.

The scheme of the Act, particularly the principles contained in Section 3 thereof, emphasizes the principles of presumption of innocence, dignity and worth, family responsibility, safety, positive measures, institutionalisation as a measure of last resort and the best interest of the child. The object of the legislation is to secure care, protection, rehabilitation and social reintegration of a child in conflict with law, rather than to adopt a purely punitive approach. However, during the pendency of the present revision, this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2026, has already granted bail to the revisionist/juvenile. In view thereof, the prayer for grant of bail made in the present revision does not survive for consideration.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no further order is required to be passed on the prayer for bail. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is disposed of. The judgment and orders dated 30.06.2026 and 03.06.2026 passed by the learned appellate court and the Juvenile Justice Board, respectively, are hereby set aside, in terms of the order dated 22.07.2026 passed by this Court, whereby the revisionist/juvenile was granted bail.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the prayer for bail and disposal of the present revision and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Juvenile Justice Board shall proceed with the matter independently and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.