Heinousness Of Crime No Consideration For Granting Bail To Juvenile Must Consider Risk Of Association With Criminals, Juvenile's Safety: J&K High Court

In allowing a bail application of a Juvenile under Sec 12 of the JJ Act Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“it is a foregone conclusion that in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, bail to a child in conflict with law whether he is allegedly involved in bailable or non-bailable offence is a rule and denial thereof an exception…heinousness of the crime or other considerations that may prevail with a Court while considering bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not relevant for deciding bail plea of the child in conflict with law”.

The case in question revolved around a juvenile accused allegedly involved in a serious crime. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Azhar Usman Khan, Advocate, contested the denial of bail by both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court, arguing that bail is a rule and denial thereof should be an exception, as per Section 12 of the Act.

The respondent, represented by Vishal Bharti, Deputy Advocate General, opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the alleged offense and the risk of the juvenile reoffending or tampering with witnesses if released.

Court's Observations on Section 12 of the JJ Act:

Justice Kumar meticulously examined Section 12 of the JJ Act 2015, highlighting that it grants bail to a child in conflict with law as a rule. The judge noted the presence of a proviso with three exceptions under which bail could be denied:

1. Association with Criminals: If there's a reasonable belief that releasing the juvenile might bring them into contact with known criminals.
2. Moral, Physical or Psychological Danger: If releasing the juvenile exposes them to potential harm.
3. Ends of Justice: If releasing the juvenile is deemed to hinder the pursuit of justice.

The court emphasized that the burden lies with the authorities to establish these exceptions for denying bail.

Crucially, Justice Kumar highlighted the necessity for the Board to provide reasoned justifications when denying bail, particularly regarding the potential risks to the juvenile's well-being. He emphasized:

“The assessment of antecedents of the accused is required to be made objectively in reference to the material collected. It is only when such information with regard to the antecedents of the juvenile is made available to the Board, it can make an informed opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile, if released on bail, is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Mere spoken reputation of the juvenile is not good enough to arrive at such objective assessment”.

The court also observed that since X's father was seeking his release, parental care could potentially aid in addressing the drug issue.

“Before me as also before the Board and before the Appellate Court it is the father, who has come forward to seek release of the petitioner on bail. In case the petitioner is addicted to drugs, parental care and process of de-addiction from some De-Addiction Centre alone would help the petitioner”, the bench remarked.

Finding none of the three exceptions provided in the proviso to Sec 12 met, the court ruled that the lower court orders were unsustainable and set them aside.

The juvenile was granted bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and adhering to specific conditions, including appearing in court as required and not tampering with evidence.

Case Title: X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment