Can Bail Be Granted Under Section 12 Of Juvenile Justice Act To An Adult Accused Of A Crime Committed As A Juvenile? SC To Examine

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Thursday, while hearing a bail application filed by the accused in the murder of a seven-year-old boy at Gurugram's Ryan International, noted that the "threshold question" that had to be examined before appreciating the case on its merits was whether Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 could be pressed into service by an adult detained for an offence committed as a juvenile in order to get bail. The juvenile in conflict with law, who was apprehended when he was sixteen years old, following a CBI investigation into the chilling murder of the Class II student at the private school, turned twenty-one on April 3 of this year. In a significant development, the Juvenile Justice Board on Monday ruled that he would be tried as an adult. The Bench, comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K. Maheshwari, granted interim bail to the accused, noting that he had been lodged in a correctional facility for almost five years. However, the maintainability of the bail application needed to be examined at greater length, the Bench noted. Justice D. Maheshwari said – "What is troubling us is this. The Juvenile Justice Board has taken a final call that the accused is to be tried as an adult. Whether that will be sustained in the next stages of litigation is a different question. But the question is, whether, even if he is to be tried as an adult, the bail application of a child at conflict with law has to be governed by Section 12." Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra argued that the accused could be granted bail under Section 12 of the Act. However, taking the opposite stand, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, submitted that the application was unmaintainable since the accused could derive the benefit of the specific provision of the Juvenile Justice Act only as a juvenile, and not as an adult. Banerjee vehemently asserted – "There are three categories – One, where the accused is between sixteen and eighteen years of age, second is where he is above eighteen, in which case, he is no longer eligible. And another category is below sixteen, in which case the accused is considered to be a child in conflict with the law…The reason why Section 12 has limited vigour is that the accused is a child. But, if the person is not a child, this is a very lightweight provision and would not be applicable. " However, Justice D. Maheshwari said – "For the purposes of this provision and its proper application, would this consideration not be with reference to the date of the incident? After decades have passed, the issue of juvenility is still taken up, and we are remanding sentences. People are getting relief as well. You are saying…because of this fortuitous circumstance that the clock has ticked by, and the accused has attained majority, therefore, he cannot maintain an application under Section 12." Justice Maheshwari also hypothesised – "If the Delhi High Court had taken a decision converse to its current decision, the accused would be tried as a juvenile. Then, would you still say that he is ineligible to apply under Section 12 and must seek bail in the ordinary manner prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure?" The Additional Solicitor-General responded that the decision to try an accused as an adult had no bearing on whether he would get bail under a provision designed for children in conflict with the law – "This second application was filed when he was above eighteen. Irrespective of whether he was to be tried as an adult, I would have maintained the argument that he could not file for bail under Section 12 and would have to resort to Section 439 of the CrPC…If this Court now interprets this provision to be applicable for people across ages, and de hors this entire dispute, such an interpretation would be unsustainable." Justice J.K. Maheshwari commented– "In the peculiar circumstances, where the pendency is because of the judicial process, it cannot operate to the prejudice of any person. Are you suggesting that because of the passage of time, the operation of the provision for bail is barred?" Banerjee suggested – "We can cut down the total number of witnesses and ensure an expeditious trial." Justice J.K. Maheshwari replied – "That is a different matter." Justice J.K. Maheshwari then pointed out the universality of the application of Section 12 – "Up to the age of eighteen, for the purposes of bail, Section 12 applies as per the spirit of the act and the relevant provisions. Only when the offence is heinous, for the purpose of trial and not bail, Section 18(3) will be relied upon." Banerjee reiterated – "This would apply only to those who are eighteen years old or younger. On the date of the second bail application, the accused had attained majority." Justice J.K. Maheshwari...

Can Bail Be Granted Under Section 12 Of Juvenile Justice Act To An Adult Accused Of A Crime Committed As A Juvenile? SC To Examine

Awstika Das

Tags