Juvenile Over 16-Yrs Age Accused Of 'Heinous Offence' Also Entitled To Bail U/S 12 JJ Act: Patna High Court Reiterates

The Patna High Court granted bail to a juvenile accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, observing that Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does not provide any classification on grant of bail and the provision applies to all children-in-conflict with law without any discrimination. 

It further observed that the even juveniles who are above 16-years-old accused of committing a "heinous offence" are also entitled to bail.

For context, Section 12 JJ Act 2015 pertains to Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

Referring to the provisions, Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order said:

"From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 or any other law for time being in force...There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in regard to grant of bail."

The court said that bail to the Juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception made out on the following three grounds: (i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal, or, (ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of justice".

The court further observed that the term 'the ends of justice' as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of JJ Act is drastically different to one as used in general criminal jurisprudence. The court further observed that the seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are not relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 J.J. Act.

Remarking on the approach to be followed by JJ boards/Courts the high court remarked:

"Hence, under the J.J. Act, 2015, a child in conflict with law is not expected to be treated as an adult offender. J.J. Boards/Courts are required to adopt fundamentally a different approach while dealing with juveniles in conflict with law. They are expected to deal with such juveniles with all sensibility and responsibility, keeping in mind the purpose and object of the J.J. Act to reform and rehabilitate the child, so as to make him a responsible and productive member of the society. The society would get ruined if such children are dealt with punitive approach".

Background

The prosecution alleged that on September 4, 2023, the appellant who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident, had enticed the victim to his house and sexually assaulted her. The FIR was lodged three days later. Medical examination reportedly found the hymen intact and no spermatozoa on the victim's private parts.

During the investigation, the Juvenile Justice Board declared the boy a juvenile but, after preliminary assessment, referred him to be tried as an adult before the Children's Court, which subsequently denied the bail.

Court's Findings

The High Court found that findings given by Children's Courts were contrary to the Social Investigation Report.

"It appears that learned Children Court has not taken pain to peruse the Social Investigation Report before passing the impugned order," the high court said. 

The SIR described the appellant as an obedient student from an educated family, with no bad habits and good relations in the community. The SIR also suggested he was falsely implicated due to land disputes.

“There is also no proof that after release, the appellant may go into association of criminals. Only conjecture and surmises regarding possibility of the Appellant to go into association of criminals would not do. The finding regarding the criminals in whose association the juvenile may go, is required to be recorded as per statutory provisions which talk about association of known criminals. But there is no such finding, nor is any material on record in this regard,” the court noted. 

It also observed that prolonged detention in the Observation Home was disrupting his studies and rehabilitation, which went against the JJ Act's reformative purpose.

Allowing the appeal, the high court directed the appellant's release on a ₹10,000 bail bond.

The court directed the appellant's father must also give an undertaking by way of an affidavit that the appellant would not come into contact with any criminal and he will continue his further studies. 

Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar & Ors

Case No.CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2609 of 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order