Juvenile Justice Act | Can't Deny Bail Merely Due To Allegation Of Serious Offence Unless Release Defeats 'Ends Of Justice': P&H HC Grants Bail To Minor Rape Accused

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a minor rape accused under the Juvenile Justice Act, observing that the mere fact that the minor is alleged to have committed a serious offense would not automatically result in declining bail, unless circumstances make it imperative to hold that such release would defeat the “ends of justice.”

A bench of Justice Sumeet Goel said a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) could be denied bail only when alleged to be involved "in a gruesome murder or a barbaric sexual assault or anti national activity of a kind which has put security and sovereignty of the country to peril or the offence by such CCL may be of a nature tearing into the social fabric of the society, on account of the nature of such alleged act/offence(s) keeping in view that grant of bail would result in “defeating the ends of justice.”

However, the Court further said that the concept of “ends of justice” available in statute for declining bail to CCL must be judiciously and sensitively employed if the facts/circumstances of a case so warrant. The mere fact that a CCL is alleged to have committed a serious offence will, ipso facto, not result in declining of bail to such CCL unless attending circumstances make it imperative to hold that such release would defeat the “ends of justice," it said.

These observations came in response to the revision plea, challenging the order passed in November by ASJ/FTC (POCSO), Panipat, and order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Panipat wherein the bail application of a 16 year old boy in a rape case, was dismissed.

The CCL was booked under Sections 4,18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 376, 506, 511 of IPC, Sections 67-A of the Information Technology Act, and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in 2023.

It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that CCL has been in custody since September 2023 and as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 he is entitled to bail.

Considering the submissions, the Court said, on a perusal of Section 12 of 2015 Act, when read in light of judgments in the case of Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh and another vs. State of U.P. [2013] and Re Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in The State of Tamil Naidu vs. Union of India & Ors., [2020], showed that legislature stipulates that a CCL is entitled to bail except when some tangible material is brought on record by the prosecution or otherwise there being "reasonable grounds for believing that the release of CCL is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral/physical/psychological danger or that his such release would defeat the ends of justice."

"Mere apprehension by prosecution, without any material to support such apprehension, would not disentitle the CCL for grant of bail," the Court added.

However, the bench clarified that there does not exist an indefeasible right in favor of the CCL for grant of bail under the 2015 Act. 

Justice Goel also explained that while dealing with a plea for bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, the JJB is to carry out an inquiry regarding the background of the CCL; the atmosphere around the routine place of residence of the CCL, and other related factors as laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgments.

 "Since the matter relates to a child, due sensitivity deserves to be exercised by the Board apart from taking requisite steps so as to avoid delay in such adjudication," the Court added.

In the present case, while noting that there was no material on record to indicate that there was a likelihood of the CCL coming into association with any known criminal or his being exposed to moral/physical/psychological danger, the bench said that the Social Information Report submitted in the matter shows that the relationship of the CCL with his father, mother, and siblings was cordial.

It rejected the argument of the State that the CCL may be exposed to danger due to the nature of his offense and remarked that it such arguments were based on apprehension, and there were no corresponding materials on record.

In light of the above, the Court allowed the plea, and relief of the bail was granted.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 35

Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Case Title XXX v.XXX