The Patna High Court held that the seriousness of an alleged offence or the age of the juvenile is of no relevant consideration for denying or granting of bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act.
The Court allowed a Criminal Revision preferred by the Petitioner against the decision of the Court of Special Judge (Children Court) that refused to enlarge him on bail in a gang rape case, citing the “brutality and professionalism” shown by the Petitioner in committing the crime. An FIR was registered against twelve people, including the Petitioner, for offences punishable under Sections 395, 376D, 397, 376(3) and 376(DA) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
A Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar held, “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.”
Advocate Manish Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Rohit Priyadarshi represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The J.J. Board declared the Petitioner a juvenile, noting his date of birth as 2001, making him 16 years, 9 months, and 26 days old at the time of the alleged incident. Cognizance of the offences was taken, and a preliminary assessment of the Petitioner was conducted, finding him capable of committing and understanding the nature of the alleged offence. The case was then transferred to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult.
The J.J. Board had previously rejected the petitioner’s bail application, citing the serious nature of the charges.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “It also emerges that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. Even the child who is 16 years or above 16 years of age and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section 12 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 Bench remarked.
The Court noted, “Though it has come on record that the father of the appellant has criminal antecedent and he is in jail, there is no such criminal antecedents of his mother, who is a housewife and doing cultivation for sustaining her family and the appellant was helping her in her effort to maintain the family.”
“As such, I find that no ground is made out to deny bail to the Appellant. In fact, I find that 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,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, directing release of the Appellant on bail, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- by his mother and undertaking by her by way of an affidavit that the appellant would not come into contact with any criminal and he would restart his education through open school or otherwise and his developmental needs would be taken care of, and he would attend the J.J. Board and courts as and when required or directed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Nitish Kumar v. State Of Bihar (CRIMINAL REVISION No.233 of 2021)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Manish Kumar and Ram Kumar
Respondent: Advocate Rohit Priyadarshi; APP Sangeeta Sharma
