Mere spoken reputation of the Juvenile is not good enough to arrive at an objective assessment and deny bail : J&K High Court.
Case title: X V. The Union Territory of J & K through in-charge Police Station, Supwal, Samba
Case no.: Crl R No.22/2023
Decided on: 19.02.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Kumar.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
A juvenile, referred to as “X” in court documents, was involved in a heinous offence resulting in severe injuries to the victim. The offence led to the arrest of several individuals, including the juvenile and other co-accused. The juvenile’s involvement in drug abuse and leaving school due to drug use was noted in the social background report. The Board and the Appellate Court initially denied bail to the juvenile based on concerns about moral, physical, and psychological danger, as well as potential association with known criminals. The Appellate Court upheld the denial of bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the victim’s injuries, and the risk of the juvenile coming into contact with known criminals if released. The case involved legal proceedings under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, with the focus on balancing the welfare of the juvenile with the need for justice and protection of society.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the document relate to the Act of 2015 concerning children in conflict with the law. Specifically, Section 12 of the Act addresses bail for individuals who are allegedly children in conflict with the law, emphasizing their status as minors below the age of 18 and the conditions under which they can be released on bail. Additionally, Section 74 of the Act aims to protect the identity and privacy of juveniles involved in legal proceedings to prevent stigma and emotional trauma. These provisions align with the broader objectives of safeguarding the welfare and rights of children in conflict with the law.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The petitioner’s contention was that bail for juveniles is a rule under the Act of 2015, and denial should be an exception. They argued that the Board and the Appellate Court did not properly consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and treated the juvenile as a regular criminal.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondent’s contention was that the juvenile was involved in a heinous offence resulting in severe injuries to the victim. They argued that releasing the juvenile on bail could lead to potential dangers, including the risk of tampering with prosecution witnesses and associating with known criminals. The respondent highlighted the juvenile’s history of creating panic in the area and terrorizing innocent people.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The courts analyzed the case in light of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Board and the Appellate Court initially denied bail to the juvenile based on concerns about the seriousness of the offence, the victim’s injuries, the juvenile’s involvement in drug abuse, and the potential danger of associating with known criminals if released.
However, the judgment highlighted that bail for juveniles is a rule under the Act of 2015, and denial should be an exception. The courts found that the Board and the Appellate Court had misdirected themselves by focusing on the heinous nature of the crime and the juvenile’s background as a habitual offender. Ultimately, the judgment set aside the orders of the Board and the Appellate Court, holding that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail under the Act of 2015. The courts emphasized that bail for juveniles should be granted unless specific circumstances exist to justify denial, as outlined in the Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava