Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
X-1 – S/o Santosh Sharma @ Fuddu Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2156 of 2023, Criminal Revision No. 895 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2023
BAIL - JUVENILE JUSTICE - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 12; Indian Penal Code, Section 376; Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 164; Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 53-A - The court discussed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 12, which outlines the conditions under which a juvenile may be denied bail. The court emphasized that the classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable is not relevant for juveniles, and bail may only be denied under specific conditions. The court also considered the implications of the Indian Penal Code Section 376 regarding the allegations of rape and the procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The interpretations of these provisions influenced the court's decision to grant bail, as the appellant was found to be a juvenile and the circumstances did not warrant denial of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a child in conflict with the law aged 17 years, was accused of raping a 10-year-old girl. The appellant had been in an observation home since the incident and sought bail, arguing that the allegations stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and that the victim was mentally challenged, as indicated by her inability to respond to questions during her statement recording.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's age was determined to be 17 years and that the victim's statement did not implicate the appellant. The probation report indicated that the appellant could be reformed and reintegrated into society. The court concluded that the denial of bail was not aligned with the objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Issues: Whether the appellant, a juvenile, should be granted bail despite the serious allegations against him, considering the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable is irrelevant for juveniles. Bail may only be denied under specific conditions outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, which were not met in this case. The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and the best interests of the juvenile.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order denying bail, and granted bail to the appellant under specific conditions, including the requirement for his mother to act as a surety and ensure his proper care.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present appeal is being preferred against the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Children Court, Katihar in G.R. 2158 of 2022 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 83 of 2022 by which the learned Court has refused to enlarge the appellant on bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Child in conflict with law (for short ‘CICL’)/appellant, aged about 17 years 01 month and 02 days on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 16.05.2022, is named in F.I.R. and is in observation home since 18.05.2022.
4. The allegation against the CICL/appellant is to commit rape upon daughter of informant aged about 10 years while she was playing inside her home after taking her to a nearby primary school.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that even as per the FIR, appellant/CICL is aged about 15 years, whereas on the basis of determination of age by Juvenile Justice Board, the age of CICL/appellant was found 17 years 01 month and 02 days on the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the implication of the appellant is out of neighbourhood dispute. Learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Executive Magistrate, who recorded the statement of victim under section 164 of the CrPC on 26.05.2022 clearly indicate that victim was not in a position to reply even simple question/queries related to her domestic affairs, suggest prima facie that she was mentally challenged. It is further pointed out that upon medical examination, no injury was noticed on her private part. Learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant was not examined in terms of Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) despite of the fact that the appellant was arrested immediately after the occurrence. While concluding argument, it is submitted that the investigation of the case has been completed and, as such, charge-sheet has been submitted, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that mother of the juvenile-appellant is ready to stand as a surety and furnish an undertaking that she will take care of the appellant and shall ensure that he would not fall in bad company and would take all possible care to connect him with the mainstream of the society.
7. Learned APP for the State while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that there is specific allegation against the appellant/CICL as to commit rape upon the daughter of informant.
8. Having regard to the submissions and materials showing that the appellant has been adjudged juvenile aged about 17 years 01 month and 02 days on the alleged date of occurrence, and also as appellant has remained in the Observation Home since 18.05.2022 and his mother is ready to stand as a surety and furnish an undertaking that if released on bail she will take care of the appellant and shall ensure that he does not fall in bad company and, in case, the petitioner indulges in any unlawful act, she will inform it to the jurisdictional police station as also following the spirit of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and in view of the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalu Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (4) PLJR 833 that classification of the offences under the bailable and non-bailable sections would not be relevant for the purpose of grant of bail to a juvenile and the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected only under one of the three conditions, which are as under:
(ii) The release is likely to expose the said person to moral or physiological danger.
(iii) The release would defeat t
The court established that juveniles should not be denied bail based solely on the nature of the allegations, but rather on specific conditions that indicate a risk to society or the juvenile's well-....
The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitating juveniles over punitive actions, allowing bail based on the principles outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act.
Bail for juveniles is a right under the Juvenile Justice Act, with decisions guided by the principles of best interest, presumption of innocence, and family responsibility, irrespective of the nature....
The interests of the child must be prioritized in bail decisions, underlining the presumption of innocence for juveniles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when deciding on bail for juvenile offenders in the age group of 16-18, the court must consider the mental and physical capacity of the juveni....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
