Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its Registry

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the identity of a juvenile/ child in conflict with law must not be disclosed. Thus, the Court directed its Registry to redact the name of the juvenile accused in the present case, from the entire record.Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori observed,"the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed."In Shilpa Mittal (supra), the Supreme Court had cautioned that disclosing a juvenile's identity is contrary to Section 74 (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of children) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.Thus, the Court in the instant case ordered,"The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile. The Registry is directed to conceal the names of the juvenile from the cause list as well as the record of this case so that the names and identities are not disclosed as directed by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra)."The development ensued while hearing a Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s 102 of the JJ Act challenging the dismissal of the juvenile's Bail plea.Background An FIR was filed against three, where it was alleged that the victim was standing in the premises of the college where he was shot by the accused people by a pistol. The injured individual was taken to hospital after being shot where he died en-route to the Hospital. The revisionist herein was declared as Juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board as he was just was 15 years 6 months 18 days old at the time of the incident. Later, the bail application filed by the revisionist u/s 12 of the JJ Act was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. The rejection order was upheld by the appellate court. Hence, the present petition was filed by the revisionist against the orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board. Appellant/ Revisionist The counsel for the Appellant/ Revisionist submitted that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and has been assigned the role by the eye witness. The counsel also stated that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent, it was further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment and order in a cursory manner without considering the position of law and have declined bail to the revisionist during while the identity of the accused was also disclosed. Respondent The counsel for the respondent stated that since the revisionist has committed a heinous crime hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Findings At the outset, the court was of the opinion that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act."Provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety."The Court observed that juvenile shall not be released in certain circumstances, which are mentioned in latter part of the provision:If there are any reasonable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (b) that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and (c) that release of the juvenile is in conflict with law and would defeat the ends of justice.Further, rejecting the contention raised by State that the offence alleged is heinous, the Court said,"The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of "JJ Act, 2015" is available."perused the Social Information Report (SIR) and found that there exists a lack of parental control over the juvenile. The bench criticized the approach of that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court in relation to the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015 and granted bail to the revisionist and stated that – "The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" as well as other provisions in relation to juvenile 'X' and have declined to grant bail merely on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the...

Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its Registry

Shivang

Tags