Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Juvenile's Bail In Murder Case, Notes Criminal Background Of Parents

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order granting regular bail to a juvenile accused in a murder case, holding that bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 can be denied where release exposes the child to association with known criminals, moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeats the ends of justice.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj noted, "The order of the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board makes no mention of the criminal antecedents of the father, who, in the present circumstances, would have been the immediate custodian or guardian of the child in conflict with law. The father himself being lodged in Tihar jail for multiple offences (18 criminal cases) and the fact that the mother as well as the brother are absconders, there remains hardly any effective social or familial supervision over the activities of respondent No.2. Hence, the unbridled youth has found his way into the world of crime and unnecessary choice."

Allowing a petition challenging the bail order, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa, the Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that the Board failed to assess the best interests of the child in conflict with law in its true spirit.

The case arises from FIR, registered under Sections 147, 148, 285, 452, 302, 120-B & 216 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, pertaining to the murder of Devender Singh @ Gaggu.

The FIR alleged that the deceased was intentionally hit by a car, chased, and brutally attacked by a group of armed assailants using pistols and swords. The motive cited was that the deceased was a witness in a criminal case against one of the accused.

The juvenile accused, Harjinder Singh @ Gullu, was specifically named in the FIR and a .32 bore pistol along with ammunition was allegedly recovered from his possession.

The Juvenile Justice Board granted bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, holding that gravity of offence is not a consideration and that the prosecution had failed to show that the juvenile's release would attract the statutory embargo. 

Assailing the order, the petitioner contended that the juvenile was involved in multiple serious criminal cases, even prior to the present FIR, jis father was a habitual offender involved in 17–18 criminal cases and lodged in Tihar Jail and his mother and brother were also accused in the criminal case and were absconding.

After grant of bail, the juvenile absconded, failed to appear before courts, and got involved in three additional criminal cases, including offences under the NDPS Act and Arms Act.

The Court reiterated that while bail to a juvenile is the rule under Section 12, it is not absolute. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in In Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) 14 SCC 327], the Court emphasised that bail can be denied where release is likely to:

-Bring the child into association with known criminals;

-Expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

-Defeat the ends of justice.

The Court found that the Juvenile Justice Board confined itself to the prosecution's pleadings instead of independently evaluating the material on record and failed to consider the criminal background of the juvenile's family, which was relevant for assessing supervision and rehabilitation.

The Court noted that within one year of grant of bail, the juvenile was involved in three more serious offences, thereby turning the apprehensions under Section 12 into a reality rather than speculation.

" Section 12 prescribes the likelihood of bringing a CCL in association with crime and criminals as a reason to deny bail, however, such tentative fear at that time, is no longer speculative and is a reality in the present case and is evident from the involvement of respondent No.2 in as many as three criminal cases involving distinct and serious offences within a short span of time. Thus, the circumstances which persuade a Court to decline the concession of bail are a reality in the present case and not founded on mere perception or conjecture," added the Court.

Rejecting the objection regarding availability of an alternative remedy under Section 101 of the JJ Act, the Court held that the High Court's powers under Section 102 were not barred merely due to the existence of an appellate remedy, particularly in exceptional circumstances like the present case.

Holding that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to adequately consider the paramount interest of the child, the High Court set aside the bail order dated 15.10.2024 and remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa, for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: SANDEEP SINGH ALIAS SEEPA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Click here to read order