1. Accused under Sections 387 and 506 IPC — Dispute over classification of offence as serious versus heinous under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1032
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Juvenile In Conflict With Law - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14002 of 2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-07-2024 in SBCRRP No. 1372 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur]
Decided On : 11-11-2024
Important Points
The court recognized the distinction between serious and heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act, granting interim bail to a juvenile with specific conditions.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code – Sections 387 and 506 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 18(1)(g) – Petitioner denied bail for offences punishable under IPC sections; maximum punishment for Section 387 is seven years, qualifying it as a serious offence under Juvenile Justice Act – Petitioner in custody since 26 April 2023; interim bail granted with conditions due to the nature of the offences and the petitioner's age. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Conditions for Bail – The court imposed conditions on the petitioner, including not leaving District Agra and weekly presence at the local police station, considering the petitioner's antecedents. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, born on 2 May 2005, was arrested for offences under IPC and denied bail by various courts, including the High Court. The petitioner argued that the offence was serious, not heinous, under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Findings of Court: The court granted interim bail subject to conditions, acknowledging the petitioner's age and the nature of the offence.
Issues: The main issues were the classification of the offence under the Juvenile Justice Act and the conditions for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, being a juvenile, should be granted bail with conditions, emphasizing the distinction between serious and heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Result: Interim bail granted with conditions.
(B) Conditions for Bail – The court imposed conditions on the petitioner, including not leaving District Agra and weekly presence at the local police station, considering the petitioner's antecedents. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, born on 2 May 2005, was arrested for offences under IPC and denied bail by various courts, including the High Court. The petitioner argued that the offence was serious, not heinous, under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Findings of Court: The court granted interim bail subject to conditions, acknowledging the petitioner's age and the nature of the offence.
Issues: The main issues were the classification of the offence under the Juvenile Justice Act and the conditions for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, being a juvenile, should be granted bail with conditions, emphasizing the distinction between serious and heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Result: Interim bail granted with conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Shashank Surendra Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Shivam Surendra Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sarang Surendra Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Shashank Surendra Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Shivam Surendra Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sarang Surendra Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims offence is serious, not heinous, under Juvenile Justice Act — State opposes bail citing habitual offending and gang involvement in extortion. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court observed petitioner's inability to avail interim bail due to other matters and noted criminal antecedents as a basis for imposing restrictive bail conditions. (Para 4 , 6 )
4. Criminal antecedents and habitual offending justify the imposition of restrictive bail conditions, including territorial limitations and mandatory police reporting. (Para 6 )
5. Bail granted subject to Trial Court conditions, with additional restrictions on movement and a requirement for weekly police reporting. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. How is the distinction between a serious offence and a heinous offence determined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015?
The distinction is based on the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence; for example, an offence punishable by up to seven years may be classified as a serious offence rather than a heinous one. (Para 2 )
7. Can a court impose additional restrictive conditions on bail based on the accused's criminal history?
Yes, the court may impose specific conditions, such as restricting the accused to their home town and requiring weekly police reporting, having regard to the accused's antecedents and habitual offending. (Para 6 )
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.
