Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
H.S. Madaan, J.
Krishan Kumar Minor Thrugh His Mother - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-19907-2020
Decided On : 24-07-2020
Juvenile - Maintainability of petition for pre-arrest bail - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 10, 12, and general application of Criminal Procedure Code - Summary of key legal provisions and interpretations
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition for pre-arrest bail by a juvenile accused of assaulting a complainant. The petitioner argued that the Juvenile Justice Act does not specifically bar such petitions, citing previous judgments where the court had granted relief. The complainant and state counsel contended that the petition was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition to be maintainable, emphasizing the social welfare purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act and the need for rehabilitation and reformation of juvenile offenders. It noted that the Act's silence on pre-arrest bail should be read in conjunction with the general law, and that denying relief to juveniles would contradict the Act's compassionate approach.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of a petition for pre-arrest bail by a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Act's focus on the welfare and reformation of juvenile offenders, the absence of specific provisions barring pre-arrest bail, and the need to interpret the Act in line with the general law to ensure relief for juveniles accused of offenses.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and surrender his passport if applicable, with the provision for release on bail if arrested.
JUDGMENT
H.S Madaan, J. - Case taken up through video conferencing.
2. First coming to the maintainability of the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has contended that in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), there is no specific bar to filing of petition for grant of pre-arrest bail by a juvenile. Sections 10 and 12 of the said Act deal with grant of regular bail and not with pre-arrest bail, therefore saying that a petitioner should appear before Juvenile Justice Board for seeking bail is not proper.
4. Learned counsel has further argued that though in some of the cases this Court has taken the view that petition for pre-arrest bail by a juvenile is not maintainable and such judgments have been mentioned in order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Out of those, two of the petitions are CRM-M-29426-2018 titled 'Kamal Singh Versus State of Punjab' decided on 14.9.2018 and CRM-M-40284-2017 titled 'Ashokpreet Singh @ Showpreet Singh Versus State of Punjab' decided on 20.12.2017. But thereafter this Court has been granting this relief also. In that regard, he has referred to various judgments i.e. CRM-M-31678 of 2017 titled 'Gurpreet Mallan @ Gopi and another Versus State of Punjab', decided on 12.10.2017, CRM-M-12040 of 2019 titled 'Kiratpal Singh Versus State of Punjab', decided on 3.5.2019, CRM-M-26047-2018 titled 'Kuldeep Singh Bholu Versus State of Punjab', decided on 15.6.2018 and CRM-M-9401 of 2019 titled 'Jaiveer Singh Versus State of Punjab', decided on 28.2.2019.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that such petition by a juvenile is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, he has also referred to various judgments i.e. Amit Kumar Versus State of Haryana, 2013(5) RCR(Criminal) 836 . Preetam Pathak Versus State of Chhattissarh, 2015(147) AIC 529 , Shahaab Ali (Minor) And Another Versus State of U.P., 2020(1) Crimes 276 . Kamlesh Gurjar Versus State of M.P., 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 434 . Sachin Versus State of Rajasthan, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 221 and Tara Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, 2008(2) RCR(Criminal)764 .
6. Learned State counsel has also contended that this petition is not maintainable.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through judgments referred by them and also going through the record and the relevant provisions of law, I find that the present petition cannot be held to be not maintainable. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a piece of social welfare legislation, which was enacted to take care of welfare of the children and to avoid their turning into hardened criminals. The basic purpose of this legislation was to ensure that a child under age of 18 some time coming in conflict with law by committing an offence is to be tried in a manner and under such environment, which may take him to the path of reformation rather than allowing such children to mix up with criminals in the jail and themselves turning into hardened criminals. This is exactly the purpose of putting the juvenile in conflict with law, in the separate observation homes rather than in normal jail. Even if a juvenile in conflict with law is found to have committed some offence, then instead of awarding deterrent punishment, his rehabilitation and social integration is sought. If this special enactment is silent as regard a particular provision then that has to be read with the general law i.e. Criminal Procedure Code. An inference can certainly be not drawn that the legislature intended to debar a juvenile from seeking relief of pre-arrest bail. If it was also, then a specific provision in that regard would have been there on analogy of Section 18 The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which clearly bars grant of pre-arrest bail to a person alleged to have committed offence under the said act. Even
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
