IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Siddalinga S.N. @ Budda S/o Nagaraju – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Crl. R.P. No. 1372 of 2022
Decided On : 27-02-2023
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 102, 12, 15, 101, 101, (2), 18(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 302, 120B, 109, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439, 6 – Murder offence - Juvenile - Bail application - Criminal revision petition has been preferred by child in conflict with law/petitioner challenging judgment and order – Board has recorded a finding that petitioner is required to be tried as an adult by Children's Court - Para 18.
Finding of the Court: Petitioner was aged 16 years 11 months 9 days at time of committing crime and after recording reasons and complying with requirement of Section 15 of Act, Board has recorded a finding that petitioner is required to be tried as an adult by Children's Court - Inspite of petitioner challenging order in appeal before Sessions Court, it is always open to him to also file an application under Section 12 of Act for grant of bail - If same is filed, Sessions Court is required to consider same strictly in compliance of requirement of Section 12 of Act - Since learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 15 of Act in compliance of requirement of Section 101(2) of Act, impugned judgment and order passed by Sessions Court in Crl. Appeal cannot be sustained - Order passed by Principal Sessions Judge, is set aside and appeal is remitted to learned Sessions Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) has been preferred by the child in conflict with law/petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 24.082021 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. Appeal No. 360/2021 and the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mandya (for short ‘the Board’) in FIR No. 5/2020 (J.C. No. 26/2020).
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent-State.
3. Facts leading to filing of this petition as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the disposal of this petition are, on the basis of the complaint lodged by CW-1 Ningamma, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and others in Crime No. 110/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 120B, 109 read with 34 IPC. It is averred in the complaint that her son Raghu was murdered by the petitioner at the instance of other accused persons and during the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and he is in custody.
4. The petitioner, initially, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Board seeking bail and the Board before considering the same, passed orders under Section 15 of the Act on 10.12.2020 and accordingly held that the bail application did not survive before it for consideration. The petitioner instead of challenging the said order in accordance with law, had filed a separate application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, in S.C. No. 3/2021 which was dismissed on 08.02.2021. Challenging the said order passed in S.C. No. 3/2021, petitioner had approached this Court in Crl. R.P. No. 605/2021. In the said revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to exhaust the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 101 of the Act. This Court had, therefore, dismissed the said revision petition with liberty as prayed. The petitioner, thereafter, has preferred Crl. A. No. 360/2021 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Mandya, under Section 101 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 24.08.2021. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court in this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being aged below 18 years as on the date of the alleged incident, ought to have been granted bail having regard to Section 12 of the Act. He submits that the Board as well as the Appellate Court have failed to properly appreciate Section 12 of the Act.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State has argued in support of the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner has attempted to escape from the Observation Home, Mysuru and in this regard, a separate case has been registered in Crime No. 63/2021. He submits that the material on record would go to show that the petitioner has not been co-operating for speedy disposal of the case and it is under these circumstances, his bail application has been rightly rejected, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed and also perused the material available on record.
8. The petitioner, after his arrest, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Act with a prayer to release him on bail. After receipt of the said application, the Board had proceeded to pass an order under Section 15 of the Act which provides for a preliminary assessment of the juvenile, wherein a juvenile aged between 16 to 18 years is involved in committing a heinous crime, for the purpose of testing whether the juvenile can be deemed to be considered as an adult and can be tried before a criminal court under Section 6 of Cr.P.C. in accordance with the ordinary procedure of law and on passing of a
Section 12 of Act provides that a juvenile who is brought before Board shall be released on bail.
The preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, 2015 is for the purpose of trial and does not restrict the power of the Juvenile Justice Board to consider bail applications under Section 12 o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive revisional powers vested with the High Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, the lack of jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge or Childr....
Point of law: Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :-(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into as....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Juvenile Justice Board must consider the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and make an objective assessment based on reason....
The main legal point established is that the bail application of a juvenile accused of a heinous offence should be governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the court has the auth....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.