Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Jitendra Kumar, reinforced the principle that granting bail to juveniles is the rule, and its denial is the exception, as stipulated under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The case involved a child in conflict with the law (CICL), who challenged the denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Special Children Court in Gaya. The High Court’s decision underscores the Act’s rehabilitative approach, aiming to reintegrate juveniles into society rather than subject them to punitive measures.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, a juvenile, contended that the denial of bail was contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prioritises rehabilitation over punishment. It was argued that the petitioner came from a poor, uneducated family belonging to a Scheduled Caste community and had no prior criminal record. The defence emphasised that the petitioner had dropped out of school after class V to assist his family in cultivation for sustenance. Moreover, the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and the case was based on suspicion without concrete evidence linking him to the alleged offences.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, citing the serious nature of the offences, including charges under Sections 395, 376d, 397, 376(3), and 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. They argued that releasing the petitioner could expose him to criminal influences and defeat the ends of justice. The prosecution also pointed to observations by the lower courts suggesting that the petitioner was in “bad company,” warranting continued detention.

Court’s Judgment:

The Patna High Court meticulously examined the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates that bail to a juvenile is the norm, and its refusal is permissible only under specific conditions:

If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals;

If the release is likely to expose the juvenile to moral, physical, or psychological danger;

If the release would defeat the ends of justice.

The Court found that none of these conditions were met in the present case. The Social Investigation Report did not indicate any criminal background or associations for the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was not named in the FIR. The allegations of “bad company” were deemed unfounded, as there was no specific information in the Social Investigation Report to support such claims.

Justice Kumar emphasised that the Juvenile Justice Act is designed to reform and rehabilitate juveniles, not punish them. He stated, “No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society.” The Court highlighted that institutionalisation should be a measure of last resort, and the family is considered the best institution for a child’s rehabilitation.

In light of these observations, the High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and directed the release of the petitioner on bail. The Court also instructed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Gaya, to assist the petitioner in gaining admission to an open school or other educational institutions to facilitate the continuation of his education.

Conclusion:

This judgment by the Patna High Court reaffirms the rehabilitative ethos of the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasising that the focus should be on the child’s development and reintegration into society. By granting bail to the petitioner, the Court has underscored the importance of providing juveniles with opportunities for reform rather than subjecting them to punitive measures that could hinder their growth and potential.