'Derogatory' To Assume Slum Dwellers Are More Likely To Associate With Criminals: P&H High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile In Drugs Case

In a significant observation against stereotyping marginalized communities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is arbitrary to assume that individuals living in slum areas are more likely to come into contact with criminals.

The Court made the observation while granting bail to a Child In Conflict With Law (CICL) in an NDPS Act case involving 39.7 kg Ganja- commercial quantity, wherein, out of the maximum sentence of three years, he had spent two years in custody.

The Additional Sessions Judge had denied bail, considering that the CICL is an orphan living in a slum, and therefore should remain in the observation home.

"An arbitrary as well as an insensitive assumption that people living in slums are more likely to come in association with known criminals or likely to expose the said person to moral, physical, or psychological danger, and the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, is belittling humanity and, thus, is indurate and derogatory," the Court noted.

Humiliating For Society To Equate Residence In Socio-Economically Deprived Locality With Higher Propensity For Crime

The bench observed that, "It is not just harsh but also humiliating for a society to equate residence in a socio-economically deprived locality with a higher propensity for crime."

It opined that, such a negative generalization undermines the intrinsic dignity and the overall value system of those citizens who reside in less privileged habitats and amounts to an impermissible stereotyping which can neither be the approach of the Executive nor the mandate of the Legislation and Judicial precedents.

"This premise is constitutionally abhorrent and antithetical to the very ethos of any democracy. A mindset like this seeks to paint the entire community with a broad, unfair brush, portraying an implicit yet unwarranted prejudice," the Court said.

Humble Dwellings Offers Support, Mutual Care Unlike Observation Homes

Highlighting the ground reality, that a vast section of  "Bharat, lives in such humble dwellings on the peripheries of expensive residential areas, yet they nurture resilient values, rich cultural mores", the Court said such places are far from being hubs of delinquency.

"These communities are often close-knit, offering warmth, support, mutual care, emotional sustenance, and a sense of belonging; qualities that an institutional setting can seldom replicate and are starkly missing in the observation homes," it added.

Courts Should Not Bear Prejudicial Mindset Towards Marginalised Section

The bench elucidated that, "while dispensing justice, the courts should not bear a closed and prejudicial mindset towards the poor and marginalized sections of our society, including those who live in slums. Justice must always be rooted in empathy, fairness, and an unwavering commitment to equality."

To equate poverty or humble origins with criminal propensity is a fallacy that our justice system must scrupulously guard against, it added.

The Court observed that, "Prolonged incarceration in an Observation Home may itself expose a child to undesirable influences, as it congregates several children in conflict with the law under one roof, potentially heightening their vulnerability to further exploitation, abuse, and victimization."

Taking Orphanhood As Disqualification Of Bail Defeat JJ Act's Objective

The Court noted that another reason cited to deny bail to the CICL by the Special Court is that his father is deceased and his mother has abandoned him.

"But to view orphanhood as a disqualification for bail is to disregard the very spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, which recognizes the right of every child to be cared for by the community and the State. The absence of parents cannot by itself be a justification for continued confinement in an observation home,"it added.

The bench said, on the contrary, such a child deserves greater compassion and support, and not prolonged detention in the observation homes; in fact, the orphan would be better cared for by his peer group and the community that would surround him.

 The Court clarified that these observations are being made solely for deciding the present bail plea and without relying on any data.

In the light of the above and considering the long custody and also that the co-accused has already been granted bail in the case, the Court allowed the plea.

Mr. Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR-1165-2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 307