Identity Of Juvenile Is Not To Be Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Reminds Its Registry

An FIR was filed against three, where it was alleged that the victim was standing in the premises of the college where he was shot by the accused people by a pistol. The injured individual was taken to hospital after being shot where he died en-route to the Hospital. The revisionist herein was declared as Juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board as he was just was 15 years 6 months 18 days old at the time of the incident.

Later, the bail application filed by the revisionist u/s 12 of the JJ Act was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. The rejection order was upheld by the appellate court. Hence, the present petition was filed by the revisionist against the orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board.

Appellant/ Revisionist

The counsel for the Appellant/ Revisionist submitted that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and has been assigned the role by the eye witness. The counsel also stated that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent, it was further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment and order in a cursory manner without considering the position of law and have declined bail to the revisionist during while the identity of the accused was also disclosed.

Respondent

The counsel for the respondent stated that since the revisionist has committed a heinous crime hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Findings

At the outset, the court was of the opinion that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act.

"Provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety."

perused the Social Information Report (SIR) and found that there exists a lack of parental control over the juvenile. The bench criticized the approach of that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court in relation to the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015 and granted bail to the revisionist and stated that –

"The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" as well as other provisions in relation to juvenile 'X' and have declined to grant bail merely on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court are based on the heinousness of the offence"

Fundamental Principles of Care and Protection of Children (Section 3, J.J. Act)

"(i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala-fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years.

(ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All human being shall be treated with equal dignity and rights.

(iii) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential.

(iv) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be.

(v) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are not to be used in the process pertaining to a child.

(vi) Principle of right to privacy and confidentiality: Every child shall have a right to protection of his privacy and confidentiality, by all means and through out the judicial process."

Hence, the present revision petition filed by the revisionist was allowed by the court and the revisionist was enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.

Case Title: Juvenile 'X' through his father v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 77 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment