Can A Juvenile In Conflict With Law Seek Anticipatory Bail?: Uttarakhand High Court To Decide

A bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal has issued notice to the state of Uttarakhand to respond to the issue in 4 weeks.

The single judge was essentially dealing with an anticipatory bail plea by a Juvenile, a student of COER University in Roorkee, who is facing an FIR in connection with an alleged attempt to murder case.

Before the bench, applicant's counsel argued that on the date of the incident, her client was 17 years, 6 months and 5 days and further, that he had been falsely implicated and this is a case of no injury.

On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant and the state's brief holder seriously opposed the instant anticipatory bail application by contending that in view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, protection is already provided to a Juvenile.

To bolster their submission, they placed reliance upon a 2022 judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in 'Rashid Rao vs. State of Uttarakhand' wherein it had been held that the anticipatory bail application on behalf of the Juvenile is not maintainable.

In response to this, the counsel for the applicant relied upon a 2022 judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Raman vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein, it was held that if accusations are made against a child with ill intention to cause humiliation and harassment, then the right to prefer application under Section 438 of the CrPC should be available to a child.

The bench was also apprised that the co-accused in the matter has already been granted interim bail.

Taking into account the judgments of the Uttarakhand HC and Bombay HC, the bench decided to consider the question as to whether an anticipatory bail would be maintainable at the instance of a juvenile.

In the meantime, keeping in view of the fact that the main accused has been granted interim bail, as an interim measure, the Court directed that the investigation may go on, but the applicant shall not be arrested, keeping in view of the mandate of Section 12 of the JJ Act.

The matter has now been listed for a further hearing on July 15.