Children In Conflict With Law & Juvenile Justice Act: All India High Courts Cases 2022
LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here are some important decisions relating to children in conflict with law and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:1. Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its RegistryCase Title: Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P....
LiveLaw reported almost 7,000 orders and judgments in 2022 from various High Courts across the country. Here are some important decisions relating to children in conflict with law and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
1. Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its Registry
Case Title: Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The High Court has reiterated that the identity of a juvenile/ child in conflict with law must not be disclosed. Thus, the Court directed its Registry to redact the name of the juvenile accused in the present case, from the entire record.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori observed,
"the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed."
Case title - X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 140
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that a Juvenile has a right to be released on bail where a similarly circumstanced adult offender has already been extended that liberty.
The Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed was of the further view that once the adult co-accused has been admitted to bail, there would be no justification to additionally test the case of the Juvenile with reference to the requirements of the proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case title - Naushad Ali v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 170
The High Court observed that the Learning Driving License and Voter I.D. Card should not be taken into account while determining the age of a juvenile.
With this, the Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi quashed the order of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar rejecting an application moved on behalf of one Naushad Ali (Revisionist), booked under Rape, Penetrative Sexual Assault charges (under POCSO Act), for declaring him to be juvenile.
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
The Allahabad High Court 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.
Case title - Mr.X(Minor) v. State Of U.P.And Another [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1036 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 474
The Allahabad High Court has observed that factors such as the nature of the crime, the methodology adopted, the manner of commission, and the evidence available assume ample significance in deciding to deny bail to a juvenile.
The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus as it stressed that bail to a juvenile is not a must in all cases as it can be denied if, in the opinion of the Court, his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Case title - X (Juvenile) v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2521 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 498
Denying bail to a Juvenile, a religious teacher, who allegedly raped an 8-year-old girl (his student), the Allahabad High Court today observed that he needed counseling by psychiatrists/experts not only for his own betterment but also for the health of society.
"He needs to be extended services of reformatory and rehabilitatory nature so that he can move without posing danger to himself as well as to the public and so that he can be brought back to the mainstream," the bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed.
Case Title: Shankeshwar @ Shambhu s/o Bhausaheb Dhakne vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 22
A girl child is not property that can be donated, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) observed during a bail hearing after it noticed a 'danpatra' according to which the rape victim's father had allegedly donated her to a self-proclaimed godman.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to ascertain if the teen was fit to be declared as a 'child in need of care and protection' as contemplated under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The bench recorded the CWC's powers under Section 29 of the JJ Act. It noted that the CWC can hear cases for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection, as well as to provide for their basic needs and protection.
Further Section 30 of the Act dealt with the CWC's functions and responsibilities which included conducting inquiries on issues concerning the safety and well-being of children.
Case Title: Anurag s/o Jamnashankar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 70
The headmaster of a school cannot be prosecuted for cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) for a teacher's actions merely because he heads the institution in the absence of specific allegations of assault, connivance or wilful neglect on his part, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench held.
Justice Avinash Gharote allowed the headmaster's writ petition and discharged him of offences under Section 75 of the JJ Act (punishment for cruelty to child).
The court rejected the prosecution's contention that the headmaster was liable because he was the head of the institution and thus had overall control over the children wherein a dance teacher had beaten a child with an iron rod during practice, causing injuries.
Case Title : The State of Maharashtra v Shadab Tabarak Khan
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 91
A single judge of the HC, held that under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the Juvenile Justice Board has to assess a heinous offence to determine whether CCL is to be tried as an adult or juvenile.
If the child above 16 years of age, the Board has to conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, before deciding if the CCL can be tried as an adult.
10. JJ Act | Child In Conflict With Law Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 253
The Bombay High Court held that a child in conflict with law as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) can file an application under Section 438 of CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.
A division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Bharat Deshpande observed, " When a child in conflict with law is apprehended, his liberty is curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. affords a valuable right to a person, who is likely to be arrested or in other words, whose liberty is likely to be curtailed. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between different persons
Case Title: Vikas Ramji Yadav Through Ramji Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 328
Bombay High Court ordered an inquiry to be conducted into a father's allegations that his son was being wrongfully treated as an adult in a murder case despite being a juvenile.
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Madhav Jamdar passed the order in a petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus for release or production of the petitioner detained at the Thane Central Prison.
The court directed the Additional Commissioner of Police, North Region, Mumbai, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made by the father against the Police Inspector (PI) investigating the case.
Case Title: Mother Teresa Balakashram v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 335
The Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner of Women and Child Development (CWCD) can't refuse renewal of licenses without hearing or opportunity to correct defects to applicants. CWCD had outrightly rejected licence renewal proposals of at-least 57 NGOs under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, without a hearing or giving them an opportunity to correct their defects.
A division bench of Justices Magesh Patil and Sandeep Marne at Aurangabad directed the CWCD to re-consider proposals of at least nine NGOs who approached the court.
13. Juvenile Being Tried As Adult No Bar To Grant Of Bail U/S 12 JJ Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shubham @ Bablu Milind Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 416
The Bombay High Court reiterated that a juvenile in conflict with law despite being tried as an adult would be entitled to special parameters for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Merely because, he is directed to be tried as an adult, he cannot be denied the benefit of Section 12, Justice Bharati Dangre said in her order granting bail to a 17-year-old murder accused.
Case Title: The Nest India Foundation v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 423
The Bombay High Court held that children though brought up in an orphanage cannot be declared as 'orphans' as defined under Section 2(42) of the Juvenile Justice Care and Act, 2015 if their biological parents are alive.
The bench of Justices SV Gangapurwala & RN Laddha however asked the Committee under the JJ Act to decide if such children, the petitioners, can be declared as 'abandoned children' under section 2(1) of the Act.
Case Title: Suhana Khatun v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
The Calcutta High Court referred to a larger bench the legal issue as to whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) at the behest of a juvenile is maintainable. A Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Bivas Pattanayak was adjudicating upon an application for anticipatory bail sought by four minors accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code pertaining to wrongful restraint, causing grievous hurt, attempt to murder, and murder. The Bench ruled that sufficient safeguards have been provided to a child in conflict with the law should they be apprehended by the police under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 and thus an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. "Taking into consideration the safeguards provided under the 2015 Act and in the light of the legal position that a child in conflict with law cannot be arrested, the question of granting bail in anticipation of arrest of a child in conflict with law does not arise at all. In the 2015 enactment the legislature did not, consciously, empower the police to arrest a child in conflict with law. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of a child in conflict with law is not maintainable," the Bench observed.
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 170
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a prayer seeking cancellation of bail granted to two minor accused persons by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Birbhum at Suri in the case pertaining to the violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal, in which ten persons were killed allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is currently probing the case. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that since the aggrieved parties have the remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2015 Act) such a plea seeking cancellation of bail cannot be entertained. "Since an appropriate remedy of revision against the orders in question is available, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, it would be more appropriate for the parties to avail that remedy. All the grounds which have been raised before this Court assailing the orders of the JJB can be raised in the revision petition and we are hopeful that if any such revision petition is filed, the same will be duly considered and decided in accordance with law after considering the grounds raised therein", the Court observed.
Case Title: Mohd. Afsar v. State, Crl. A. 274/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court recently refused to accept the rough estimation of age, given by a rape victim's father, to determine whether the offences under the POCSO Act are attracted.
Justice Mukta Gupta observed that to determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. It provides that the first priority has to be given to the Matriculation or equivalent certificate and in the absence thereof, to the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other than a play school.
In the instant case, the Bench noted that as per the date of birth recorded in the school first attended, the prosecutrix was a child in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act as she was below the age of 18 years.
Thus, even if in the cross examination, her father had given a rough approximation of her age, the same cannot be taken as an exact estimation of the date of birth of the prosecutrix.
Case Title: Court on its own motion v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 899
The Delhi High Court has observed that extracting confession from a child regarding the manner in which the offence was committed by him is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a preliminary assessment report required to be prepared under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
As per Section 15(1) of the Act, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to make a preliminary assessment regarding the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit an offence and the ability to understand its consequences along with the circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed.
However, there are no guidelines as to how the Board would conduct such a preliminary assessment.
The observations have been made by a division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal while dealing with a criminal reference concerning issuance of guidelines to be followed by Juvenile Justice Boards in conducting preliminary assessment to try a juvenile as an adult.
Case Title: RK vs State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1127
In a case dating back to 1999, the Delhi High Court has set aside the life sentence of a murder convict after he took the plea of juvenility during the pendency of his appeal. The ossification test revealed that his age was between 10 to 20 years old on the day of incident.
"Considering the fact that the upper age limit cannot be taken to the detriment of the appellant and as per the lower limit, the appellant was a minor at the time of alleged incident, he is entitled to the benefit of juvenility. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/452 IPC as noted above. Maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the said offences, which is not being challenged on merits before this Court, the order on sentence is set aside," said the court.
20. Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To 16-Yr-Old Accused Of Committing Unnatural Sex With13-Yr-Old
Case Title: Minor Mohit Shankarbhaai VaghelaThrough Tejal Shankarbhai Vaghela V/S State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 192
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a 16 years old boy, accused of forcibly committing unnatural sex (sodomy) with a minor boy, aged about 13 years.
Keeping in view Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a Bench of Justice Samir Dave granted bail to the accused while restraining him from entering the society where the alleged victim resides. In doing so, the Bench allowed the criminal revision application filed underSection 102 of the JJ Act to quash the order passed by the Sessions Court andthe JJ Board, refusing bail.
Case Title: Taja Begum & Ors Vs UT of J&k
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 55
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made it clear that the presumption of innocence in favour of a juvenile under Section 3(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be applied to the adult co-accused in a crime.
The bench of Justice Dhar rejected the contention raised by the Petitioners herein (co-accused with the juvenile) that since the main accused, being a juvenile, is to be presumed free of any malafide intent, the petitioners cannot be roped in by invoking the provisions contained in Section 34 of the IPC.
Case Title: Zubair Ahmad Teli Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 79
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that there is no requirement of prior consideration of the social investigation report by JJ Board while considering a bail plea under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, as that was never intended by the legislature.
A bench comprising Justice MA Chaudhary observed: "The primary assessment of a child in conflict with law is for further purpose of trial i.e., as to whether he should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board or by the Children's Court. It will not curtail the power of the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the application filed under Section 12 of the J.J.Act, 2015"
Case Title: Ishfaq Ahmad Najar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 98
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that the provisions of J&K Juvenile Justice Act 2013 are retrospective in nature and accordingly the age of juvenility has to be taken as 18 years and not 16 years, which was the age of juvenility under the Act of 1997, even though that was in force at the time of commission of the alleged occurrence.
Case Title : Sanjay Raina Vs State of J&K & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 218
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that in order to ascertain the claims of juvenility, courts should give priority to the certificate issued by the educational institution other than play school which was firstly attended by the accused.
The observations came from a bench comprising Justices M A Chowdhary while hearing a revision petition against order of Additional Sessions Judge which upheld Magistrate's decision that the petitioner/appellant was not a juvenile.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
While refusing to reduce the sentence of a man, convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code when he was a juvenile, the Jharkhand High Court has observed that one of the prime concerns of the juvenile justice system is to ensure that the delinquent juvenile is also prevented from reoffending, thus the sentence period is a part of the reintegration and thus must be completed.
Case Title: MasterPavan S v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.195/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 117
Observing that whereas the maximum punishment in respect of the alleged offence for which the accused, who was 17 years old at the time, is booked is of 3 years and he has already spent about 2½ years in custody, theKarnataka High Court passed an order granting bail.
The petitioner who was aged about 17 years, along with other accused persons, who are 21 in number, are said to have committed murder of two persons. Hence, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The Petitioner herein was booked under Sections 143, 144, 147,148, 341, 302, 120-B, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) of PDPPAct.
Case Title: BANU BEGUMW/O KHAJASAB ALIAS MEHABOOBSAB and Others Versus State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100659 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the absence of a declaration that a child is deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, filing of chargesheet under section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (CareAnd Protection Of Children) Act 2015, is without any substance.
Case Title: The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa.
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200058/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court has said that while determining the age of a minor rape victim, the certificate issued by the school authorities stands on a higher footing than the medical opinion of a doctor.
To determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. A division bench of Justices Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti observed that it is only in the absence of the matriculation or equivalent certificates or the date of birth certificate from the School or a birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal authority or a panchayat, that the medical opinion would be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or the child.
Case Title: Arjun Reghu v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Court has held that courts shall not employ a hypertechnical approach when the accused produces sufficient evidence in support of his argument that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the crime. Justice A. Badharudeen added that the claimant discharging the burden mentioned in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act or its Rules is sufficient to prima facie satisfy the Court to decide the question of juvenility.
Case Title: Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that Aadhaar card is not recognized by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as a document of proof of the date of birth of an accused under the Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when there is a dispute regarding the age of an accused, if a certificate from the school is available, which specifies the date of birth, that alone can be looked into for the purpose of identifying the date of birth of the alleged child under section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act, 2015.
Case Title: Vidhi ka Ulaghan Karne Wala Balak Versus State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 65
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench held that a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) cannot be treated as an undertrial prisoner as contemplated under Section 436-A CrPC, since arrest/ confinement/ apprehension are not contemplated in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Anand Pathak was essentially dealing with a criminal revision preferred by a CCL, challenging the order passed by the lower court, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed.
Case Title: Prahlad Singh Parmar Vs. State of MP and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 85
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that the power of Juvenile Justice Board to grant bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act") does not require a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia was essentially dealing with a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Act, wherein the Applicant was challenging the order passed by the JJB, whereby it granted bail under Section 12 of the Act to a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
Case Title: Agavai (Name Changed) v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court set aside the detention order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvallur against a 15 years old child in conflict with law, observing that the order was passed in a hasty manner without going into the genuineness of the matter.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandra also observed that a child offender should not be given punishment based on the kind of offense he/she has committed but should be given an individual treatment that is reformative in nature and which is based on his/her need, psychological and social background.
The court also opined that the parents, teachers, schools, community, and law enforcement agencies need to understand, prevent and reduce risk factors that may push children towards adopting behaviors that may harm them. The court further observed that no child is born criminal and it is his/her social factors that make them do acts against the law.
Case Title: SADHU SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 203
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that there can be no joint proceedings of a 'child in conflict with law' with a person who is not a juvenile.
The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 (applicable to the present Petitioner-accused), any order could only have been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and not the Magistrate Court.
Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW 'S' Versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 220
The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a case involving juvenile in conflict with law who allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 427, 511 of the IPC, held that if the juvenile in conflict with law suo motu makes appearance before Juvenile Justice Board concerned in respect of the petition offences, thereupon the said appearance would be deemed to be his making his constructive custody.
The bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur further added that after such appearance, the juvenile in conflict with law, becomes empowered to claim bail as per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Case Title : Suhail Ahmed v. State of Haryana
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (PH) 249
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that when the accused had, while committing the offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night, also voluntarily caused or attempted to cause death, then the convicting Court can per-emptorily impose a sentence of life imprisonment, upon the juvenile in conflict with law.
The bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur further added that the punishment for simpliciter offence of lurking house trespass by night or house-breaking by night can be less than 7 years whereas, an "offence", is a "heinous offence", only when the imposable sentence, upon the convict, is per-emptorily statutorily contemplated to necessarily extend upto a term of 7 years or more.
Case Title: Rxxxxx Dxxxxx Versus State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 259
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an undertrial or a juvenile who is in conflict with law does not have any fundamental or statutory right to pursue higher education abroad.
Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri in the ruling also said that though the right to travel abroad is a "valuable and basic right" apart from being an integral part of right to personal liberty, it can be curtailed in a "reasonable, just and fair manner" under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, particularly Sections 90 and 91 of the enactment.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 22
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus.
A division bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear that such an order passed under the JJ Act is valid and thus, the person cannot be said to be under illegal confinement for the purpose of issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
" It is trite to state that validity of an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be examined in a writ of habeas corpus. Apparently, as the corpus has been sent to the Balika Gruh, Jodhpur under a valid order of the Child Welfare Committee in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, she is not under any kind of illegal confinement."
The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for production of one Mst. 'P', claiming that she is his legally wedded wife and that she has been wrongfully confined.
Case Title: Ayaan Ali v. The State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 7
In light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the Uttarakhand High Court noted that any person, who is apparently a child, shall be entitled to be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.
Justice R.C. Khulbe noted that the distinction between bailable or non-bailable offense has been done away with in respect of a juvenile. He observed, "In other words, every juvenile is entitled to be released on bail except in circumstances where his/her release will bring him/her into association with any known criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. As per the Section 2 (12) of the Act, 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age."
Case Title: XXXX v. In Re-The State of Assam & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
The Gauhati High Court has issued a slew of directions for proper enquiry in the cases relating to sexual abuse of children.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Rashmin Manharbhai Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saikia passed the order in a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered in 2019 on the basis of a news article which reported sexual and physical abuse of minor girl inmates of a children's home.
Case Title: Roshni Meher v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 68
The Court granted bail to a child in conflict with law after she remained in custody for over 'three years'. A Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Narasingh came down heavily on the police for its apathetic approach and observed, "Proceedings of the High Court cannot be held hostage to the whims of the investigating agency and for their lackadaisical attitude, rights of an accused cannot be marginalized, needs no emphasis."
Further, the Court hoped that necessary corrective action shall be taken so as to make the Police machinery more responsive to the needs of administration of justice.