Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Neha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRR No.4584 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-02-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the refusal of bail to a juvenile should be based only on the grounds specified in the Juvenile Justice Act, and gravity of the offence cannot be a valid reason for refusal of bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Juvenile - Indian Penal Code - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC - Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after being implicated in a murder case. The lower courts denied bail based on the belief that her release would expose her to danger and associate her with known criminals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts did not properly consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which entitles a juvenile to bail unless specific exceptions apply. The court also emphasized that the refusal of bail should be based on the grounds specified in the Act and supported by relevant material.
Issues: The key issue was whether the denial of bail to the juvenile was justified under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of bail to a juvenile should be based only on the grounds specified in Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, and gravity of the offence cannot be a valid reason for refusal of bail. The court also emphasized the importance of considering relevant material and following the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower courts' orders and directed the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to specific conditions.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
1. Prayer in this revision petition is for setting-aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jalandhar vide which the regular bail of the petitioner who is declared as a juvenile vide order dated 26.07.2017 by the Juvenile Justice Board has been dismissed as well as the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.249 dated 09.07.2017 under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) was registered on the statement of Harbans Lal that he has two sons and two daughters. His younger son namely Honey aged about 18 years was studying in class 11th. On 08.07.2017, at about 06:00 pm, his son Honey had gone to fetch fodder but did not return to home. At about 08:15 pm, he rang up his cell phone number 7710464534 but did not get any response. Thereafter, he along with his family members tried to locate him throughout the night but could not find him. On the next day at about 07:00 am, he along with his neighbour had gone to canal where he found blood on the earth and one footwear of his son Honey and, therefore, he believing that he has been murdered by some unknown person and they have thrown the dead body in the canal, thereafter the FIR was registered.
3. During the investigation, two persons namely Gagandeep Singh and Tejinder @ Ajay were arrested and Gagandeep Singh made a disclosure statement that the petitioner–Neha (juvenile) was having friendship with co-accused Tejinder @ Ajay and she in conspiracy with them got murder of Honey as he used to inform her family member about her love affair with Tejinder @ Ajay.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the date of birth of the petitioner (juvenile) is 07.12.2002 and on the date of occurrence i.e. 08.07.2017 she was even less than 15 years of age. It is also stated that she was a student of class 9th and she has been involved in the FIR on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and her name was not mentioned in the initial investigation. It is also stated that the story of friendship of the petitioner with the accused person is falsely created and she being a juvenile even if released on bail cannot tamper with the evidence in any manner as she is the first offender. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of “Swati Maliwal Jaihind Chairperson Delhi Commission of Women vs. Raju through Juvenile Justice Board and others”, 2016(1) Recent Apex Judgments 18, has held as under:-
“Rule 17 (3) provides that the release shall be as per the pre-release and post-release plan prepared under the Individual Care Plan and reviewed from time to time by the Management Committee set up under Rule 55. Rule 50 (12) provides for developing an individual care plan with the ultimate aim of the child being rehabilitated and reintegrated based on their case history, circumstances and individual needs. Such individual care plan specifically needs consultation with the concerned juvenile while determining his care plan. Rule 55 makes it mandatory for the Management Committee to consider and review periodically post-release o post restoration follow up. Rule 65 also provides for a detailed procedure of restoration of the juvenile back to the family and follow up action by the Juvenile Justice Board. It also includes when a juvenile expresses his unwillingness to be restored back to the family, the Board shall make a note of it in its records in writing and such juvenile shall not be coerced or persuaded to go back to the Probation Officer establishes that restoration to family may not be in the best interest of the juvenile or if the parents or the guardians refuse to accept the juvenile back. The said Rule also provides for submitting a quaterly follow-up report to
