Gravity Of Offence Should Not Be Considered When Hearing Bail Plea Of Juvenile Sexual Assault Accused: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench, granted bail to a 14-year-old juvenile accused of sexual assault under IPC Section 376(ab) and the POCSO Act. Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar presided over the case and stated that the fundamental principles of care and protection of children as per Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, included the presumption of innocence, dignity and...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench, granted bail to a 14-year-old juvenile accused of sexual assault under IPC Section 376(ab) and the POCSO Act.
Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar presided over the case and stated that the fundamental principles of care and protection of children as per Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, included the presumption of innocence, dignity and worth, best interest, and family responsibility. The court reiterated that the gravity of the offence should not be the sole criterion for denying bail to a juvenile.
Court stated, “All the decisions referring the child need to be based on consideration that they are in best interest of child and to help the child to develop full potential. The main object of the Act is to treat the juvenile offender with utmost care and caution. The gravity of offence should not be taken into consideration while considering his application for grant of bail.”
The case began when the juvenile was accused of assaulting a 7-year-old girl. Following the investigation, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) rejected the bail applications, leading the father to file a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The defence argued that the JJB and ASJ had mechanically rejected the bail without considering the Act's relevant provisions. They emphasized that the juvenile was a bright student, recently passing his Class-8 exams while in the observation home. The social investigation report recommended rehabilitation with his family, indicating no likelihood of harming or influencing the victim. Furthermore, the report mentioned that the juvenile had no criminal antecedents, and his release would not expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger.
The JJB and ASJ had previously cited concerns about the juvenile's anger and potential danger to his mental growth if released. However, the High Court found that the social investigation report did not support these claims. The report highlighted that the juvenile's father, a labourer earning ₹15,000 per month, and his mother, a cook earning ₹5,000 per month, were capable of looking after his welfare and education. The neighbours described the juvenile's behaviour as gentle, and his conduct at the observation home was appropriate, recommending his rehabilitation with his family.
Justice Sanjay Kalgaonkar observed that the previous orders suffered from illegality and impropriety and stated that “It goes to show that none of the parameters for refusal of rehabilitation of the child in conflict with law with his family is made out. Thus, the impugned order suffers from illegality and impropriety.”
Consequently, the court set aside the appellate court's order and granted bail to the juvenile subjected to certain conditions like the child in conflict with law will pursue his study at the appropriate level and be provided vocational training and not contact the victim.
Case title: Juvenile In Conflict With Law Through His Natural Parent And Guardian Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case no: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4004 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 223