Introduction:

The Patna High Court has granted bail to two children in conflict with law who were apprehended with more than 65 kilograms of ganja, holding that the statutory scheme under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 places release on bail as the normal rule for a child in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court expressed serious concern over the circumstances in which the two petitioners were allegedly found transporting a commercial quantity of contraband from Guwahati in Assam to Didarganj in Patna.

Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing connected criminal revision petitions arising out of a case registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The case concerned the alleged recovery of 65.940 kilograms of ganja in gross weight and 63.760 kilograms in net weight from 109 plastic packets. According to the prosecution case, the packets had been concealed in a secret cavity in the chassis and in the space between the chassis and the footsteps of a Mahindra TUV vehicle.

The case assumed an unusual dimension because the persons apprehended with the contraband were initially treated by the DRI as adults. Their ages were recorded as 25 years and 21 years respectively. However, when the matter came before the Juvenile Justice Board, an inquiry into their age resulted in both being declared children in conflict with law. The Board assessed one petitioner to be 15 years and 9 months old and the other to be 16 years old on the date of the alleged occurrence.

The Juvenile Justice Board nevertheless rejected their applications for bail, and the appellate court subsequently affirmed those orders. The petitioners therefore approached the High Court in revision.

The principal question before the High Court was whether the seriousness of the allegation and the recovery of commercial quantity of ganja could justify denial of bail to children in conflict with law when none of the specific statutory grounds for refusing bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was established.

While answering that question in favour of the petitioners, the High Court also drew attention to circumstances which, in its view, could not be ignored. The Court particularly questioned how two persons subsequently declared to be juveniles could allegedly have driven from Guwahati to Patna, carrying commercial quantity of ganja, without identification documents, registration papers or driving licences.

The Court therefore directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to conduct a detailed inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the petitioners’ age, educational history, government records and their journey from Assam to Bihar. The inquiry has to be completed within three months and placed before the High Court.

Thus, while granting statutory protection to the juveniles at the stage of bail, the Court simultaneously ensured that the unusual circumstances surrounding their apprehension were subjected to further investigation.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court refusing them bail. Their case principally rested upon their status as children in conflict with law and the special protection afforded to children under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The petitioners pointed out that the DRI had initially treated them as adults by recording their ages as 25 years and 21 years. However, an age inquiry conducted by the competent Juvenile Justice Board subsequently resulted in findings that they were minors on the date of the occurrence. One petitioner was assessed to be 15 years and 9 months old, while the other was assessed to be 16 years old.

Once they were declared children in conflict with law, the petitioners contended that their entitlement to bail had to be examined under the specific statutory framework applicable to juveniles rather than by applying the same considerations ordinarily applicable to adult accused persons.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides a special bail regime for a child alleged to have committed an offence. The statutory provision proceeds on the basis that a child in conflict with law should ordinarily be released on bail, whether with or without surety or under the supervision of a probation officer or a fit person.

The petitioners therefore argued that bail could be denied only when one of the circumstances specifically contemplated by Section 12 was established. These circumstances relate to the likelihood of the child’s release bringing the child into association with a known criminal, exposing the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeating the ends of justice.

According to the petitioners, none of these conditions was demonstrated by the prosecution. Merely pointing to the quantity of ganja allegedly recovered from the vehicle could not, by itself, satisfy the statutory requirements for refusing bail to a juvenile.

The petitioners further relied upon the principle that the Juvenile Justice Act is a welfare-oriented legislation intended to ensure care, protection, rehabilitation and social reintegration of children in conflict with law. Consequently, the approach towards bail under the Act must be consistent with the statutory objective of protecting children rather than treating them in the same manner as adult accused persons.

The State and the DRI, on the other hand, opposed the grant of bail, particularly in view of the serious nature of the allegations. The case involved a very substantial quantity of ganja, allegedly concealed in a specially created cavity in the vehicle. The prosecution case therefore involved transportation of a commercial quantity of narcotic substance.

The circumstances of the apprehension also raised questions regarding the petitioners’ claimed age. The DRI had initially recorded them as adults, whereas the subsequent age inquiry resulted in their being declared juveniles.

The prosecution also drew attention to the alleged journey from Guwahati to Patna. The petitioners were stated to have travelled a considerable distance while allegedly transporting commercial quantity of ganja. The Court was informed that they were allegedly travelling without identification documents and without documents relating to the vehicle or driving licences.

These circumstances, according to the prosecution, warranted careful scrutiny before extending relief to the petitioners.

The State and DRI therefore sought to sustain the orders of the subordinate authorities refusing bail. The circumstances surrounding the transportation of the contraband, the quantity involved and the discrepancy regarding age were relied upon to oppose the petitioners’ request.

The High Court, however, distinguished between the question of whether the petitioners should be released on bail under the special statutory regime governing children and the separate question of whether the unusual circumstances surrounding their apprehension required investigation.

The Court ultimately found that the latter issue could be investigated without denying the petitioners the statutory protection available to them under Section 12.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Arun Kumar Jha allowed the criminal revision petitions and set aside the orders by which the Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the petitioners’ bail applications and the appellate court had affirmed those orders.

The central reasoning of the High Court was based on the language and purpose of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court observed that for a child in conflict with law, bail is the rule. The statutory framework does not make the gravity of the alleged offence, standing alone, a sufficient reason for refusing bail. Instead, the court has to examine whether release of the child is likely to bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

This distinction was important in the present case because the allegations involved a commercial quantity of ganja. The Court nevertheless held that the seriousness or gravity of the alleged offence cannot, by itself, override the specific statutory protection granted to a child under Section 12.

In other words, the nature of the offence remains a relevant factual circumstance, but it cannot substitute for the statutory conditions which Parliament has expressly prescribed for denial of bail to a child in conflict with law.

The Court found that there was no cogent material before it demonstrating that the release of either petitioner would result in their association with known criminals or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger. Similarly, the Court did not find sufficient material to establish that their release would defeat the ends of justice within the meaning of Section 12.

Consequently, the subordinate courts were not justified in refusing bail merely by relying upon the seriousness of the allegation.

The Court therefore directed that the petitioners be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions.

However, the Court did not overlook the unusual circumstances of the case. In fact, the order reflects a distinction between the statutory right to consideration for bail as a child and the State’s responsibility to investigate circumstances which could potentially disclose other irregularities.

The Court was particularly concerned with the discrepancy concerning the petitioners’ ages.

The DRI had initially recorded one petitioner as 25 years old and the other as 21 years old. Subsequently, following an inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board, their ages were assessed as 15 years and 9 months and 16 years respectively.

The difference was significant. It was not merely a minor discrepancy in the recording of age but a substantial difference which changed the legal status of the accused persons and brought them within the protective framework of juvenile justice legislation.

The Court therefore considered it necessary to ascertain how such a discrepancy had arisen.

The Court also found the circumstances of the alleged journey particularly noteworthy. The petitioners were stated to have travelled from Guwahati in Assam to Didarganj in Patna. The journey allegedly involved the transportation of a commercial quantity of ganja concealed inside a vehicle.

Yet, according to the material before the Court, the petitioners allegedly had no identification papers. They were also stated to have been without documents such as the vehicle’s registration certificate or driving licence.

The Court observed:

“It is also surprising that the petitioners, two juveniles, drove all the way from Guwahati, Assam to Didarganj, Patna, without any identification papers or any documents like registration certificate or driving license.”

The observation reflected the Court’s concern that such a long journey, allegedly involving transportation of a substantial quantity of contraband, could not simply be treated as an ordinary circumstance.

The Court questioned how the petitioners could have travelled from Assam to Bihar without attracting attention despite allegedly carrying commercial quantity of ganja.

The issue was particularly significant because the petitioners were subsequently declared to be juveniles. If they were genuinely 15 and 16 years old at the relevant time, questions could arise regarding their ability to undertake such a journey independently, their access to the vehicle, their education and identity records, and the circumstances in which they became involved in the alleged transportation.

The High Court therefore directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

The inquiry is required to examine whether the petitioners were in fact juveniles and whether their claimed ages are supported by reliable records. The authorities have also been directed to examine whether the petitioners had never received education or attended school.

The Court further directed the authorities to ascertain whether the petitioners had availed themselves of any benefits or schemes of the State Government in which proof of age would ordinarily have been required.

This aspect assumes significance because official educational and government records can potentially provide contemporaneous evidence concerning a person’s age. The inquiry, therefore, is not limited merely to accepting or rejecting the age determination already made by the Juvenile Justice Board but seeks to examine the surrounding documentary and factual circumstances.

The Court also directed an inquiry into possible security lapses during the alleged journey from Assam to Bihar. The authorities are required to examine how the petitioners could allegedly travel such a long distance with the contraband and without the documents ordinarily associated with the vehicle and its driver.

The High Court fixed a period of three months for completion of the inquiry and directed that the report be placed before the Court.

Importantly, the Court did not make the inquiry a reason to indefinitely postpone the benefit of bail. Instead, it preserved the statutory protection available to the petitioners while ensuring that the State investigates circumstances which could have wider implications.

The Court also addressed the possibility that the inquiry could reveal suppression or fraudulent conduct concerning the petitioners’ age.

It directed that if the inquiry establishes that the petitioners had concealed material facts regarding their age or had indulged in fraudulent practices, the State and the DRI would remain at liberty to approach the Juvenile Justice Board or the concerned court for cancellation of their bail bonds.

This direction balances two competing considerations. On one hand, the Juvenile Justice Act requires courts to adopt a child-centric approach while considering bail. On the other hand, the legal system cannot ignore material circumstances suggesting that the juvenile status may have been obtained through concealment or fraud.

The Court’s approach therefore does not amount to an unconditional acceptance of every claim of juvenility. Rather, it recognises that once a competent authority has declared a person to be a child in conflict with law, the statutory consequences under Section 12 must follow, while leaving room for the State to investigate any genuine doubt regarding the circumstances in which that status was established.

The order also demonstrates the distinction between bail adjudication and investigation into the underlying circumstances of a criminal case.

At the stage of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court was required to determine whether the statutory grounds for refusing release were established. The Court found that they were not.

The inquiry directed by the Court, however, concerns separate factual questions surrounding the petitioners’ age, educational history, government records and their alleged journey with the contraband. Those questions may have evidentiary relevance to the proceedings and may also have consequences if deliberate concealment or fraud is subsequently established.

The High Court accordingly allowed the criminal revision petitions and directed release of the petitioners on bail, while ordering the three-month inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

The case is significant because it illustrates the special position occupied by children in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice Act. Even allegations involving a serious offence and commercial quantity of narcotics cannot automatically result in denial of bail when the statutory conditions under Section 12 for refusing release are not established.

At the same time, the judgment makes clear that the protective framework for juveniles does not prevent courts from directing an investigation where the surrounding circumstances raise legitimate questions. The Court’s directions concerning the petitioners’ age, absence of identity and vehicle documents, alleged long-distance journey from Assam to Bihar and possible security lapses ensure that the grant of bail does not bring the investigation into those issues to an end.

The Patna High Court thus adopted a two-fold approach: the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the statutory bail regime applicable to children in conflict with law, but the unusual circumstances surrounding their alleged transportation of commercial quantity of ganja required further scrutiny. If that inquiry ultimately reveals concealment of material facts or fraudulent conduct relating to their age, the State and DRI have been expressly permitted to seek cancellation of their bail bonds before the appropriate forum.