Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 821
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J
MOHD. MUNIB – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. – Respondent
CRL.REV.P.-1112/2023
The court upheld the juvenile's bail and age determination, emphasizing rehabilitation over retribution and confirming the absence of legal infirmities in the JJB's assessment process.
Headnote:
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 12 and 15 - The petitioner challenged the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the trial of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) as an adult and the grant of bail. The JJB found CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of his actions, thus granting bail under Section 12. (Paras 1, 20, 66)
(B) Age Determination - The determination of age is critical in juvenile cases as it impacts jurisdiction and procedural safeguards. The JJB relied on school records as the primary evidence for age determination, confirming CCL-SAH's juvenility. (Paras 25, 30)
(C) Preliminary Assessment - The JJB conducted a proper preliminary assessment under Section 15, evaluating CCL-SAH's mental and physical capacity, and concluded he should not be tried as an adult. (Paras 31, 36)
(D) Natural Justice - The petitioner argued a violation of natural justice due to lack of hearing; however, the court found no statutory requirement for the complainant's presence in juvenile bail proceedings. (Paras 53, 60) (E)
Result: The petition is dismissed, and the impugned order is upheld.
ORDER :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The present petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter “JJ Act”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16th September, 2023 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Children Court), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “ASJ”) in Criminal Appeal No. 259/2022, whereby the appeal against two orders dated 28th October, 2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board-III, Delhi (hereinafter “JJB”) was dismissed.
2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:
a. On 4th September, 2022, the petitioner, Mohd. Munib, lodged a missing person report (DD No. 4A) at Police Station - Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, regarding his cousin, Mohd. Haseeb (now deceased), who had gone to meet one Naushad on 3rd September, 2022 at around 04:30 PM and failed to return home.
b. Despite the petitioner‟s efforts, the police did not immediately register an FIR, and only upon persistent persuasion did the police register an FIR No. 247/2022 on 5th September, 2022 under Section 365 of the IPC at Police Station - Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi.
c. During the course of investigation, the police examined CCTV footage from the vicinity, which revealed that Naushad‟s nephew, Raja, was seen moving the scooty of Mohd. Haseeb. Accordingly, Naushad, his son, who is the Child in Conflict with law in the present case (hereinafter “CCL-SAH”) and his nephew-cum-servant, Raja were arrested by the police.
d. Upon interrogation, Naushad and CCL-SAH confessed that a dispute had arisen between Naushad and the deceased over a financial matter, during which Naushad instructed his son to bring a gun and kill Mohd. Haseeb.
e. CCL-SAH retrieved a licensed firearm from their house and shot Mohd. Haseeb leading to his death. Subsequently, the accused persons disposed of his body in Gang Nahar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and made concerted efforts to destroy evidence, including cleaning the crime scene, disposing of the victim‟s belongings and erasing CCTV footage.
f. On 6th September, 2022, based on the disclosure statements of the accused persons, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from Gang Nahar, and the weapon of offence, four live cartridges and the vehicle used for disposal of the body were seized.
g. In light of the evidence, offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) were added to the case, and a chargesheet was filed against Naushad and Raja, while CCL-SAH was produced before JJB as a Child in Conflict with Law.
h. Since CCL-SAH was above 16 years of age at the time of offence, a Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was required to determine whether he should be tried as an adult.
i. The petitioner filed an application under Section 15 of the JJ Act before the JJB seeking to have CCL-SAH tried as an adult, considering the heinous nature of the crime and his active role in committing the murder as well as disposing of the body of the deceased.
j. The JJB, vide order dated 28th October, 2022, granted bail to CCL-SAH under Section 12 of the JJ Act and held that CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences, thereby rejecting the petitioner‟s plea to try CCL-SAH as an adult.
k. Aggrieved by both the orders dated 28th October, 2022, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi, challenging both the grant of bail and the order rejecting the trial of CCL-SAH as an adult on the ground that the preliminary assessment was flawed, three different birth dates of CCL-SAH were recorded in different documents and the prosecution was not given a fair opportunity to present its case against the grant of bail.
l. The learned ASJ, vide judgment dated 16th September, 2023, dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders passed by the JJB observing that J
