The court recognized the distinction between serious and heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act, granting interim bail to a juvenile with specific conditions.

ORDER

We have heard Mr. Ajit Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amogh Bansal, the learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. Our order releasing the petitioner on interim bail dated 30 September 2024 reads thus :

“1 The petitioner has been denied bail by an order dated 12 July 2024 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur.

2. The petitioner has been implicated in FIR No 625 of 2022, registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 387 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 26 April 2023 and is in custody since then. A charge-sheet has been submitted on 8 June 2023.

3. Based on the position that the petitioner was born on 2 May 2005, the application for bail was taken up, but was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaipur on 5 August 2023. The Sessions Judge affirmed the rejection of bail application on 18 August 2023. The High Court has dismissed the revision on 12 July 2024.

4. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the maximum punishment for the offence punishable under Section 387 is seven years. Hence, it has been urged that the petitioner at the highest is accused of having committed a “serious offence” as opposed to a “heinous offence” within the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 for which the maximum custody in a Special Home is three years under Section 18(1)(g).

5. Bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 26 April 2023, we issue notice returnable on 21 October 2024, and direct by way of an ad-interim order that the petitioner be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

6. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

7. List the Special Leave Petition on 21 October 2024.”

3. The learned counsel appearing for the State, while opposing this petition, vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He further pointed that there are as many as five cases against him of extortion. He also pointed out that the petitioner is one of the member of a gang that indulges in extortion.

4. It appears that although this Court ordered released of the petitioner on interim bail, yet the petitioner could not avail the benefit of this order as he has still to secure bail in some other matters.

5. Be that as it may, we order release of the petitioner on bail in connection with the present offence subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. However, having regard to the antecedents as pointed out by the State, we on our own impose two conditions :

(i) The petitioner, if at all ultimately gets released on bail, he shall not leave District Agra, i.e. his own home town; and

(ii) He shall mark his presence at the Baah Police Station, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh once in a week.

7. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.

8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.