Gravity Of Offence Not A Relevant Consideration While Dealing With Bail Plea Of Juvenile Accused: Allahabad HC

Perusing Section 12 of the Act, which lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender, the Court noted that the Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as grounds to reject the bail.

A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam stressed that a juvenile could be denied bail only in three circumstances and that are: (i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

In this regard, the Court also referred to the High Court's 2010 decision in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu vs. State of U.P. 2010, wherein it was held that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing the grant of bail to the juvenile.

These observations were made by the single judge while granting bail to a minor/ Child in Conflict with Law in connection with a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302, and 34 of the IPC.

The Juvenile had moved to the High Court after he was denied bail by the Special Judge (POCSO)/8th Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur.

His counsel contended that as per the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist/applicant was aged about 16 years and 6 months at the time of the incident and that there is no criminal history to his name and that 4 Co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court.

It was also submitted that none of the grounds contemplated under proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act 2015 can be used to deny bail to the applicant.

Observing that the applicant is a juvenile and was entitled to the benefits of the Act's provisions, the Court noted that the applicant does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology and does not have a criminal history.

The Court also considered that he had been in confinement for an unduly long period, as the trial had not concluded within the time frame contemplated by the Act.

Even otherwise, the Court added, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act that may disentitle the applicant to grant of bail at this stage.

Against this backdrop, the Court, while noting that his mother undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act as to his safety and well-being, upon his release, the Court granted him bail.

Case title - X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2024]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 403

Click Here To Read/Download Order