Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1889
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Master Bholu (Imaginary Name) – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 8691/2021 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 06-10-2021 in Cras No. 443/2021 Passed By The High Court of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Durga Dutt, Advocate, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Jai Girdhar, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Advocate, Mr. Upendra Narayan Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Priyanshu Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Asg Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate, Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Kartik Dey, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal, Advocate, Dr. Mamta Tekriwal, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The court emphasized the need to balance the competing claims and equities, considering the serious nature of the crime and the petitioner's age at the time of detention, in granting interim bail.
Headnote:
Juvenile Justice Act - Bail Application - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12, Section 2(12), Section 2(13) - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who was about sixteen years and four months of age at the time of the alleged incident, is now over twenty-one years of age and has been continuously in detention for about five years. The petitioner sought bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted interim bail to the petitioner, imposing specific terms and conditions, and providing for expeditious proceedings in the trial. The court also emphasized the need to balance the competing claims and equities, considering the serious nature of the crime and the petitioner's age at the time of detention.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bail plea of the petitioner could be considered in terms of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, given the petitioner's age at the time of the alleged incident and his current age.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the serious nature of the crime with the petitioner's age at the time of detention, granting interim bail with specific terms and conditions to ensure proper progression of the trial.
Final Decision: The court granted interim bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the need for expeditious proceedings in the trial and imposing specific terms and conditions to address the competing claims and equities.
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, particularly in view of the questions sought to be raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this matter.
2. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ['the Act of 2015'] as also the decisions of High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No. 2510 of 2020 dated 19.10.2020 and Gauhati High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1482 of 2008 dated 24.08.2010, that even if it has been ordered that the petitioner is to be tried as an adult (though learned counsel would submit that such an order is subject to challenge by the petitioner) yet, his bail plea is required to be examined only in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for the fact that he was a 'child' within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act of 2015 on the date of incident. According to the learned counsel, at the most, the petitioner could be said to be answering to the description of 'a child in conflict with law' in terms of Section 2(13) of the said Act but, in any case, he is entitled for consideration of his bail plea in terms of Section 12 thereof.
3. Per contra, it has been strenuously argued by Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that in any event, for the reason that the petitioner has already attained the age of eighteen years and in fact, he is now in twenty-one years of age, his present bail plea cannot be considered with reference to Section 12 of the Act of 2015.
4. Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has, apart from other submissions, particularly referred to the order dated 02.09.2020 read with the order dated 29.10.2020, as passed by a 3-judge bench of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3350 of 2020, and even the order passed prior to the said order wherein this Court consistently observed that for the purpose of consideration of the bail application, the petitioner was required to be treated as an adult.
5. It is submitted that the relevant factor now is that after remand of the matter by this Court by way of the order dated 13.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022, the Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram has finally made the assessment that the petitioner, who was about sixteen years and four months of age on the date of incident, was required to be tried as an adult.
6. In this view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the relaxed consideration in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is not available to the petitioner and it would be a different matter if he moves for regular bail, in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the parties may have their own submissions to make with reference to the merits of the case.
7. We have taken note of all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the issue raised but, as at present, we have not as such entered the merits of the bail plea of the petitioner because that consideration would depend on the answer to the threshold question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain his bail plea under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 or not. The submissions as made in that regard, do give rise to the substantial points to be determined by this Court. It also goes without saying that if the answer to this point is in favour of the petitioner, then his bail plea is to be considered in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 though in that regard too, the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 would come into operation. However, that would be a stage later and dependent on the answer to the first point for determination.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are inclined to grant leave in this matter, so as to consider the relevant issues appropriately.
9. Accordingly, leave granted.
10.
