Misplaced Sympathy Denies Justice To Society: Madhya Pradesh High Court Declines Juvenile's Bail Plea For Allegedly Kidnapping, Murdering Minor For Ransom

In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a child in conflict with the law need not be granted bail irrespective of the offence committed. The Court was dealing with the case of a juvenile who had kidnapped a 16-year-old and later murdered him due to non-payment of ransom.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal emphasised that provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be interpreted to give undue advantage in matters of bail, especially when heinous crimes are committed by the juvenile. The Bench held:

The murder of a helpless and innocent child shows the depravity of the mind of the person committing such offence. The kidnapping of a child for ransom and in absence of receipt of ransom murder of kidnapped child cannot be treated to be an act, which can be dubbed as a child's mistake committed during youth or adolescence. It is an act motivated with passion to obtain heavy ransom from the father or family members of the deceased child...shows the cruel mentality of the juvenile in conflict with law. 

While considering bail to a juvenile in conflict with law, gravity of offence cannot be considered but at the same time it cannot be overlooked that discretion of bail to such a person will obviously tantamount subverting the course of justice, the Court added.

It is necessary to strike a balance between the welfare of the child-in-conflict with-law as well as the concerns of the society; the bench sitting at Jabalpur stated that the 'cries of the family of the deceased child' cannot be ignored.

“…Whenever child becomes victim of offences, let alone heinous offence like rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault, murder, society craves and cries for justice. By showing misplaced sympathy to a juvenile…the society is denied justice which is not and cannot be the intention of law”, the Court said.

Background & Observations

It was stated that the child-in-conflict with-law, with the assistance of his co-accused, had demanded Rs 20 lacs from the father of the deceased as ransom. According to the police, it was the juvenile himself who divulged the information about the whereabouts of the dead body.

“…As per Social Investigation Report, juvenile is in habit of consuming liquor. He is also used of drugs and smoking. He has deprave and malign mentality. Therefore, I am of the view that aim of the Juvenile Justice Act is to take care of both child in conflict with law as well as the society…”, the court further justified why it is a fit case to deny bail to the juvenile.

The court held that the Sessions court, Chhindwara rightly dismissed the bail plea and affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Accordingly, the high court dismissed the criminal revision filed under Section 102 of JJ (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Before the High Court, counsel for the state contended that the heinous offence was committed in a pre-planned manner, which revealed the depravity of the juvenile's mind. The counsel also urged the court to deny the plea for bail on account of the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probationary Officer.

“…It is true that gravity of the offence alone cannot be a ground to reject the bail application but where a helpless child of 16 years age is murdered only because father failed to pay ransom, the depravity of mind of the juvenile is very much manifest”, the court initially opined after considering the arguments put forth by both counsels.

The High Court elaborately discussed the ambit of Section 12 of the Act while denying bail. Generally, Section 12 enables the board to grant bail to juveniles irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offences.

The court opined that the 16-year-old juvenile could be denied bail if any of the conditions mentioned in Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015, is available.

Relying on Section 12(1), the Sessions Court earlier denied the bail by reasoning that his release would bring him into close association with known criminals and expose him to moral, psychological and physical dangers. These risks will in turn, defeat the ends of justice, the Sessions Court had observed then. The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial court on this aspect.

“…On a bare perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that bail to juvenile is not "must" in all cases as it can be denied by assigning proper reasons. The law does not say that once a person is found juvenile, he should be released on bail notwithstanding the other facts and circumstances of the matter”, the court clarified.

Moreover, the Act itself has categorised offences into petty, serious and heinous based on its nature, the court added. Dealing with heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act requires more sensitivity on the part of courts; it is further stated in the order by relying on Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2012) 5 SCC 201].

“…Society has always been sensitive towards offences against the innocent children. Therefore, while considering the prayer for bail in cases related to kidnapping for ransom and murder of abducted boy the Court has to see whether release would not expose juvenile to the danger of retribution by the Society…”, the court remarked that murder of a minor child poses the risk of retribution against the juvenile, which would, in turn, defeat the ends of justice as mentioned in Section 12.

Though the gravity of the offence cannot be considered in matters of bail under the JJ Act, it certainly cannot be overlooked to the effect of 'subverting the course of justice', the court further made it clear. The act of the juvenile is not merely 'a child's mistake committed during adolescence or youth', the court added. All of the acts allegedly committed by him revealed his cruel mentality, the court noted.

“…The object of Juvenile Justice Act is not only reformatory but is retributive also to some extent. While dealing with grant or refusal of bail the ends of justice compel the Court to strike a balance between conflicting demands of justice of both the sides i.e. the accused and the victim”, the court underscored in its final order.

Counsel For Applicant: Advocate Ahadulla Usmani

Counsel For State: Panel Lawyer Papiya Ghosh

Case Title: Child Under Conflict With Law v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Criminal Revision No.1300/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 88

Click Here To Read/ Download Order