CCL Cannot Be Denied Bail Merely Due To Absence Of Male Family Member For 'Supervision': MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an appeal under the Juvenile Justice Act, granted bail to the appellant, stating that the absence of a male family member to supervise the applicant cannot serve as a sole reason for denying bail or suspension of sentence. The Court was presided over by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla who stated, “This Court finds prima-facie the case for grant of bail because...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in an appeal under the Juvenile Justice Act, granted bail to the appellant, stating that the absence of a male family member to supervise the applicant cannot serve as a sole reason for denying bail or suspension of sentence.
The Court was presided over by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla who stated, “This Court finds prima-facie the case for grant of bail because the appellant is more than 21 years and he cannot be denied bail/suspension of sentence only on the ground that there is no male member in the family to have control over him.”
The Court directed that the appellant should be released on bail under strict supervision of the Probation Officer, Women and Child Development Department, Shajapur.
The juvenile was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and is currently 21 years old and has been denied bail. The court clarified that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot justify the denial of bail to a child in conflict with the law (CICL).
“The discretion to deny the bail/suspension of sentence is only in exceptional cases where the safety or justice interest are involved. The report of Probation Officer shall be relevant consideration for considering an application for bail/suspension of sentence and the application shall not be rejected only on consideration of seriousness or manner of commission of offense in the case of a child who has attained the age of 21 years during the pendency of the trial/appeal.”
The court made observations about the application of juvenile justice provisions and in context to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court stated, “The discretion to deny bail/suspension of sentence is only in exceptional cases where safety or justice interests are involved.”
Further while considering the appellant's circumstances, the court noted that the Probation Officer had not filed an adverse report against him on his conduct. The appellant was located in a car with a dead person, but the evidence did not show that he was aware of the body's presence. The conviction was largely based on circumstantial evidence, and the court ruled that the appellant could not be remanded in continuing detention simply on these grounds.
The court held that in cases where a juvenile turns 21 during the trial, the consideration of bail must still align with the rehabilitative focus of the Juvenile Justice Act.
It stated, “In the case of a child who has turned 21 years during the trial, his case shall be considered as per the provisions of section 20 of the Act. As per the sub-section 2 of section 20 of the Act,…. In such eventuality the court has to keep in mind that the primary object of the Act is the juvenile's rehabilitation not punishment.”
The CICL should be placed in a “place of safety” until the age of 21, and only afterwards can they be transferred to a regular jail, provided their behaviour and conduct warrant such a move, the court said.
The court also stated that the appellant should be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000, with the condition that he report to the Probation Officer every two months. The court further ordered that the Probation Officer monitor the appellant's conduct and submit updates every six months. In case of any adverse report, the prosecution would have the option of filing for cancellation of bail.
Case title: Juvenile X Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 227
Case no: CRA No. 818 of 2024