While granting bail to a child alleged to be in conflict with law (CICL), the Patna High Court referred to Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to underscore that bail to a juvenile is a rule and refusal of bail is an exception.
In doing so it said that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law can only be denied in certain circumstances including if on bail the juvenile person may come into contact with a known criminal, or if the juvenile may be exposed to physical, psychological danger. It thus reiterated that the purpose of the Act which is that children even if they get into some conflict must be reformed and not punished, as a punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society.
Perusing through Section 12, 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.It further emerges that as per Section 12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception and Juvenile can be denied bail only 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.”
It further said that there is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act in regard to grant of bail, and the provision is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature.
“The J.J. Act is based on the belief that children are the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society,” the court underscored.
“Section 12 of the J.J. Act is in consonance with the purpose and object of the Act, providing for mandatory bail to a juvenile in conflict with law unless the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act is/are present, so that the child is re-united with his family at the earliest opportunity and the protection, development, reformation and rehabilitation of the child is ensured,” the court added.
Background
The court was hearing a CICL’s plea challenging the judgment passed by the Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya, refusing to enlarge him on bail.
As per the factual matrix of the matter, a case was registered in June, 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 376D, 397, 376(3) and 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against ten unknown persons, and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons including the appellant in the POCSO Court.
On an application of the CICL, the POCSO Court sent the record of the Appellant to the J.J. Board, Gaya for declaring him juvenile, and he was subsequently declared as juvenile and cognizance of offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act, 2012 was taken against him.
The CICL’s bail application was rejected by both – the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children Court, being aggrieved by the which, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the High Court.
Findings
The High Court taking note of the observation made by the J.J. Board as well as the Children Court found that they were not in consonance with the Social Investigation Report. The Court said, “the appellant belongs to a poor and uneducated family belonging to a Scheduled Caste community and on account of poverty of his family, he was constrained to drop out from the school after passing out class-V so as to help his family in cultivation for sustenance. He is unmarried and the eldest son of his parents. He has no criminal antecedents.”
Further, taking note of the observation of the Court below that the Appellant was in ‘bad company,’ the Court said that it was unfounded, “No specific information has been provided in the Social Investigation Report in support of such observation. From the statement of the mother of the appellant, it transpires that his family is very poor, struggling for its sustenance and the Appellant was helping his mother to maintain the family.”
The Court also said the appellant was not named in the FIR and the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and no specific allegation is made against the appellant and that, “the whole case was based on suspicion without any cogent evidence to show the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence.”
The Court thus concluded that there was nothing on record to show that if the Appellant was released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger.
The Court further stated, “There is also no material on record to suggest that he was a member of criminal gang and his release would bring him in association with such criminals. … I find that the Appellant was acting as a responsible member of his family. He, despite being a minor, was helping his mother to maintain the family. He has dropped out from school only on account of financial difficulty of the family and to help his mother in cultivation so that her mother could maintain the family.”
Finding no ground was made out to deny bail to the Appellant, the Court said, “release of the Appellant on bail would be in the best interest of the child if he is provided with education and District Administration helps his family as per the State Welfare Schemes to tide over his financial hardship.”
Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside. The Court directed the appellant’s release on bail and further directed the DLSA, Gaya, to provide assistance to the Appellant in getting admission in open school or other educational institutions, so that the Appellant could restart his education.
Case Title: X vs The State of Bihar
LL Citation:
