IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J.
Jatin – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
C.R.R. No. 2876 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Bail - Juvenile Justice - The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 12, 2015 Act, 2000 Act - The petitioner, a child in conflict with law, sought bail under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court analyzed the statutory provisions, case law, and legal principles to determine the entitlement to bail for a child in conflict with law. The court found that the petitioner deserved to be released on bail based on the absence of material indicating danger or association with known criminals.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a child in conflict with law, sought bail after being arrested for alleged offences under various sections including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner's age was about 16 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged offence. The trial was pending, and the petitioner had been in custody since the arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner deserved to be released on bail as there was no material indicating likelihood of association with known criminals or exposure to danger. The court noted that the Social Information Report reflected a normal background and environment for the petitioner, and the seriousness of the alleged offence alone was not sufficient to deny bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, deserved to be released on bail during the trial. The court also considered the factors involved in such a plea and the statutory provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a child in conflict with law would be entitled to bail unless there were reasonable grounds for believing that release would bring the child into association with known criminals, expose the child to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the alleged offence alone was not a reason for rejection of bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the previous orders denying bail, and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail. The court directed the concerned magistrate to impose appropriate conditions for the bail and allowed for the possibility of bail cancellation in case of breach of conditions.
Judgment
Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.
The petitioner-child in conflict-with-law (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCL’) has filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by learned ASJ/FTC (POCSO), Panipat and order dated 07.11.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, JJB, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Juvenile Justice Board’). By way of impugned orders the prayer made on behalf of the CCL for grant of bail has been dismissed.
2. The case set out, in the FIR No.609 dated 28.09.2023 registered under Sections 4, 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘POCSO’), Sections 376, 506, 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’) Sections 67-A of Information Technology Act (added later on) and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat District Panipat (as stated in the petition) is as follows:-
“TO, SHO, Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat. Sir, it is submitted that I, Geeta daughter of Sh. Mohan Lal, Caste Dhanak, is resident of Sondapur, District Panipat. I have two sons and two daughters. My elder daughter Sneha aged about 16 years is student f 10th Class. I and my husband used to sell toys in fair for livelihood. We have gone to village Gangwa, District Hisar in the fair of Dashmi from many days. When we returned from the fair then my daughter Sneha told me by weeping that on 26.09.2023 when she was standing at about 9 o’clock at Sondapur Chowk for going to school then at a that time one boy namely Jatin came there and he coaxed me and taken me to Raj Mahal Hotel, Gohana Road, near petrol Pump in Auto and after reaching there he tried to commit forcible rape with me and made my video. When I asked him to go to my home by crying then Jatin gave me threatening that if you will disclose this to anyone then I will kill your brother and viral the video. Jatin has committed wrong by committing such thing with my daughter Sneha. Jatin may be arrested and legal action may be taken again him. Complainant. Geeta wife of Sh. Mohan Lal, resident of Sondapur, District Panipat “
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2023 and is in custody since then. The date of birth of the petitioner has been stated to be 11.12.2006 as per which the CCL is aged about 16 years and 09 months on the date of alleged offence i.e. 28.09.2023. Learned counsel has further stated that after completion of investigation, challan (report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed on 28.12.2023 wherein total 15 prosecution witnesses have been cited. Learned counsel, while relying upon the statutory provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has argued that the petitioner ought to have been released on regular bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. The prime point for determination in the present petition is as to whether the CCL deserves to be released on regular bail during the pendency of the trial in the facts/circumstances of the case. The analogous legal question that arises for consideration is as to what are the factors involved for consideration of a plea by a CCL for his release on bail.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
7. Sections 3, 8(e) and 12(1) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘2015 Act’) read as under:-
3. General principles to be followed in administration of Act.-
The Central Government, the State Governments, [the Board, the Committee, or] other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions o
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.
The gravity of the offence does not justify denying bail to a juvenile; specific findings must be recorded to demonstrate risk of moral danger or association with known criminals.
Denial of bail to a Child in Conflict with Law requires substantial grounds; mere seriousness of allegations is insufficient if statutory criteria are not met.
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.