Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
“X” Juvenile - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K through Incharge Police Station, Supwal, Samba - Respondent
Crl. R. No. 22 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Juvenile - Bail under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 102 - 3/4/25 Arms Act, Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, which mandates bail for a juvenile in conflict with law, subject to certain exceptions. The court emphasized that denial of bail to a juvenile is an exception and must be justified based on specific circumstances, as outlined in the proviso to Section 12. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting the identity of juveniles in conflict with law, as mandated by Section 74 of the Act of 2015 and supported by relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after being implicated in a heinous offence. The Board and the Appellate Court denied bail based on the petitioner's alleged involvement in the crime and his social background report, which indicated drug use and habitual offending. The petitioner challenged the denial of bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the denial of bail by the Board and the Appellate Court was not justified under the Act of 2015. It emphasized that bail for a juvenile is a rule, and denial is an exception, requiring specific grounds as per the proviso to Section 12. The court found that the circumstances justifying denial of bail did not exist in the case, and the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Issues: The key issue was whether the denial of bail to the juvenile was justified under the Act of 2015, considering the specific circumstances and exceptions outlined in Section 12 and the proviso.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, emphasizing that bail for a juvenile is a rule and denial is an exception, requiring specific grounds as per the proviso. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting the identity of juveniles in conflict with law, as mandated by Section 74 of the Act of 2015 and supported by relevant case law.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the Board and the Appellate Court, holding that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the Act of 2015. The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions and emphasized the need to protect the identity of juveniles in conflict with law.
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [“the Act of 2015”], filed by “X” Juvenile through his father S. Trilok Singh, is directed against an order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samba [“the Appellate Court”], whereby it has upheld the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Principal Juvenile Justice Board, Jakh, Samba [“the Board”] on the bail plea of the juvenile.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that on 24.09.2022, a written complaint was filed by one Jasvinder Singh resident of Vijaypur against Vikas Salathia, Vasudev alias Shunu and Rohit alias Makhan for attempting to murder his brother Balwinder Singh S/o Harpal Singh R/o Vijaypur, Samba. It was alleged that on 24.09.2022 at about 1100 hrs, Balwinder Singh along with one Sourab Baloria were going towards Supwal on Motorcycle and when they reached near Barian near Hanuman Road, above named accused persons hit the motorcycle with unknown vehicle due to which Balwinder Singh and Sourab Baloria riding the motorcycle fell down. The accused then shot at Balwinder with an intention to kill him. They even attacked Balwinder Singh with sharp-edge weapon (“Toka”). Balwinder Singh got seriously injured and was referred to a Hospital in Amritsar for further treatment. On this information, FIR No.239/2022 under Sections 307, 323, 34 IPC and 3/4/25 Arms Act was registered and investigation was entrusted to ASI Ibrar-Ul-Haq Inchare Police Post, Supwal.
3. During the course of investigation, accused Rohit, Vasudev alias Shunu and Vikas Salathia were arrested in the case and were subjected to sustained interrogation. As per the police investigating the matter, accused Rohit and Vasudev confessed their involvement and on their identification, weapons of offence i.e. One Pistol and one Toka were recovered. It seems that from the further investigation in the matter and recording of statements of the eye witnesses including the eye witness Sourab Baloria, it came to fore that apart from Rohit, Vasudev, Atul Choudhary, Avtar Singh, Mohd. Ismail, the petitioner herein “X” Juvenile was also involved in the instant case. Accordingly, the remaining accused, too, were arrested. Since the petitioner was juvenile at the time of commission of crime, he was, thus, produced before the Board and on the orders of the Board, the petitioner was sent to the Observation/Remand Home, R.S. Pura, Jammu.
4. The petitioner moved an application before the Board for bail primarily on the ground that he was not involved in the commission of crime but later on falsely implicated. He also submitted that he being a juvenile is entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 as a matter of right.
5. The bail application was opposed by the APP appearing for the Union Territory on the ground that as per the police report, an FIR for heinous offence under Sections 307/326/34 IPC and 3/25 & 4/25 Arms Act has been registered in which the involvement of the petitioner has been established. It is submitted that the petitioner along with other anti-social elements has created panic in the area and terror in the minds of innocent people. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility that he will jump over the bail and temper with the prosecution witnesses.
6. The Board considered the rival contentions and having regard to the evidence collected during investigation came to the conclusion that the petitioner, who is admittedly a child in conflict with law, is involved in various cases and there is every likelihood of his repeating the offence, if released on bail. It was also observed by the Board that in case juvenile is released on bail, when other co-accused are in jail, it may expose the juvenile to moral, physical and psychological danger. Strong reliance was placed by the Board on the social background report obtained by it. The reaso
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail for a juvenile in conflict with law is a rule under the Act of 2015, and denial of bail is an exception that must be justified based on s....
Bail for juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory unless there are justifiable grounds for denial.
Bail for juveniles under Section 12 of the J.J. Act cannot be denied based solely on the seriousness of the offence; concrete grounds are required to support denial.
Rejection of bail for juveniles must be based on proven risk factors, not just the seriousness of the charge; rehabilitation is prioritized under juvenile law.
Identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.
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....
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
