[JJ Act] Social Investigation Reports Usually Prepared Without Proper Research, Can't Place Much Reliance On Them: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that while denying or granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, much reliance can not be placed upon a social background or a social investigation report as they are usually prepared without proper research."...a social background or a social investigation report may have a very limited purpose to serve. The findings cannot be...
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that while denying or granting bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, much reliance can not be placed upon a social background or a social investigation report as they are usually prepared without proper research.
"...a social background or a social investigation report may have a very limited purpose to serve. The findings cannot be solely based on such reports, which are more than often very superficial and unscientific. It is common knowledge that social investigation reports are usually prepared in printed formats without proper research. In my opinion, not much reliance can be placed on such half-baked reports," the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma remarked as it denied bail to a juvenile accused of committing murder while he was just over 13 years old.
The Court further stressed that the Courts are under obligation to address the concerns of both sides (victim as well the juvenile in conflict with the law) while deciding upon whether or not the ends of justice shall stand defeated in case the juvenile is admitted to bail.
Importantly, noting that cases of juveniles who have allegedly committed a heinous crime and are of the age of above 16 years have been treated differently from those who are found to be of the age of below 16 years in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, however, the Court stressed, by no stretch of the imagination, it can be said that the Courts are bound to release the juvenile below the age of 16 years once he is found to be of that age and no more.
"...the nature of crime, the manner of commission, the methodology applied, the mental state, the extent of involvement, the evidence available shall be the factors to be taken into account in both the types of cases where the juvenile is below 16 or where the juvenile is above 16. No artificial line can be drawn between the two categories when considering the bail from this particular angle."
The case in brief
As per the version of the FIR, Nitin (deceased) had gone to his college on his bullet motorcycle to receive his report card. When he approached the gate of his college, he found the revisionist (minor) and his brother standing there. He got engaged in some kind of conversation with them. Suddenly, the minor revisionist whipped out a country-made firearm and shot at Nitin. He was referred to Meerut Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and died.
On finding that the revisionist is a minor, the matter was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, and the Juvenile was found of the age of little over 13 years and 6 months. The minor applied for bail through his guardian/father but the same was rejected by the Board. The Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut took into consideration the report of the District Probation Officer and made it a sole ground for dismissal of his bail application.
Thereafter, an Appeal was filed against the bail rejection order, the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Court below. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the minor through his guardian/grandfather moved to the High Court in criminal revision.
Court's observations
At the outset, the Court observed that the gravity and heinous nature of offence becomes relevant while judging the entitlement of a juvenile to bail under the last of the three disentitling categories (explained below) under Section 12(1) of the Act.
Here, it may be noted that Sec 12 of the JJ Act clearly authorizes the Juvenile Justice Board to consider a bail plea and to release a juvenile on bail with or without surety or to place under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit person.
This provision further states that such a Juvenile shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the (i) release is likely to bring the Juvenile into association with any known criminal or (ii) expose the said Juvenile to moral, physical or physiological danger or his (iii) release would defeat the ends of justice.
Here, it may further be noted that initially, all children below the age of 18 years were to be treated as juveniles and tried by the Board. Only after the 2015 Act came into force, a separate category for juveniles between 16 to 18 years involved in the heinous crime, was culled out, who were subjected to a preliminary assessment to ascertain if they are to be tried as a child by the Board or as an adult by the Children's Court under Section 15 of the Act.
Now, the High Court, in the instant case, noted that the allegations against the Juvenile are not important and relevant while granting or denying bail, however, such allegations may assume importance when the Court has to form an opinion about the ends of justice as the Court are under an obligation to address the concerns of both the sides while deciding upon whether or not the ends of justice shall stand defeated in case the juvenile is admitted to bail.
The Court further added that no useful purpose may be served by looking into the background of the offender or as to reasons and circumstances as revealed from the social investigation report, which led him to this juncture or which brought him into such a quagmire.
In this regard, the Court also emphasized that the Court has to rely on its own judicial discretion and objective assessment of things while still going strictly according to the provision of law as to bail and also keeping in mind that the Act has an intertwined approach to a reformatory as well as retributive.
Regarding the instant case, the Court said that this fact can't be ignored that it was the juvenile who came prepared and armed with a country-made firearm, and though he accompanied his brother, it was he, who fired upon Nitin. The Court also noted that before the commission of the crime, he picked the firearm from his own house indicating that this incident was not committed at the spur of the moment, rather it was planned.
"The Court is, in such circumstances expected to strike a delicate balance between competing and more often than not, conflicting demands of justice where liberty of an individual is pitted against the larger interest of the society. In such cases, the need for specific supervision of the juvenile and wider need to convert the juvenile into a healthy adult by giving him professional counseling and behavioral therapy under the scheme of the Act cannot be underestimated. Moreover, it may be necessary to keep him away from the company of elements, which he previously had," the Court further remarked as it denied bail to the Juvenile in question.
Case title - Minor Son Of Moolchand Through His Natural Guardian Grandfather Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2126 of 2021]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 438