In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized that gravity of offence cannot be the ground to deny the bail application of a juvenile, unless there are exceptional circumstances as provided in the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 12 prescribes that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer/ any fit person. The proviso states that the juvenile shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice. The JJ Board is further mandated to record the reasons and circumstances for denying bail.

Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case, observed, “The impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court bears infirmity whereby the bail application of the juvenile was rejected taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of offence; while disposing of the bail application of the juvenile, the gravity of offence cannot be the ground to deny the bail application of the juvenile, unless and until, there are the exceptional circumstances as provided in proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board, which was affirmed by the learned appellate Court needs interference and this Criminal Revision deserves to be allowed.”

The above ruling came in a Criminal Revision petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order passed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Godda in a Criminal Appeal, whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in an inquiry in connection with a case registered under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, wherein the bail application of the juvenile was rejected.

The events leading to the Criminal Revision began when the victim's father filed an FIR, alleging that his 13-year-old daughter left home at 06:00 in the morning to relieve herself in Bahiyar. Concerned when she didn't return, he searched for her and learned that a boy from their village, Md. Ramjani, was also missing.

Subsequently, it was discovered that Ramjani had persuaded her and taken her towards Sanhaula Police Station. Two days later, the daughter was found alone near the village of Bokwachak. Upon receiving information, the father brought his daughter home. It was revealed that the accused's father was also involved in this incident.

Based on this written information, a criminal case was registered at the concerned police station under Section 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The investigating officer conducted an inquiry during which the informant reiterated all the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR). Further, the statements from the victim, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aligned with the prosecution's narrative.

Notably, according to the case diary, the victim declined to undergo a medical examination.

Moreover, the Social Investigation Report of the juvenile depicted amicable relations with family, friends, and neighbours, with no evidence of negative habits or prior criminal involvement.

The Court emphasized that it is settled law that the bail application of a juvenile should ordinarily be allowed, except the circumstances as laid down under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

In view of the Social Investigation Report, he Court observed that none of the ground was shown against the CCL as provided under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.

Taking note of the Social Investigation Report of the CCL, the Court observed that there was nothing adverse against the CCL.

“In view of the submissions made and the materials on record, nothing is on record to show that the release of the petitioner on bail would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger or defeat the ends of justice,” the Court noted while allowing the Criminal Revision petition.

While setting aside the impugned order passed by the J.J. Board and the order passed by the Appellate Court, the Court directed, “In consequence thereof, the petitioner-CCL is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount on behalf of his guardian (mother of the juvenile) to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The guardian (mother of juvenile) of the CCL would also give undertaking that he would keep her vigil eyes upon him and will restrain him from coming in association of the known criminals.”

Appearance:

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate

Advocate for the State: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 253 of 2023

Case Title: Md. Ramjani Vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 48

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement