Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of bail to a juvenile accused of brutally murdering a man along with his co-accused, observing that the gravity of the offence, direct involvement of the juvenile, and absence of compelling reasons to grant bail outweigh the general principle of release under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The revision petition, titled Bipul Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246), was heard by Justice Manoj Kumar Garg, who underscored the necessity of a cautious approach when dealing with heinous crimes involving mental depravity. While acknowledging that the law favours bail for juveniles unless their release would associate them with known criminals or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological harm, the Court emphasized that such considerations cannot supersede the severity of allegations involving a merciless killing. The Court also highlighted the preliminary assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which recommended that the juvenile be tried as an adult, given the nature of the crime. The judgment serves as a reminder of the balance courts must maintain between rehabilitation of young offenders and the need to uphold justice, particularly when dealing with crimes that shock the conscience of society.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented as a juvenile, filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Children Court, which had denied him bail despite his age. It was argued on his behalf that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 clearly favours granting bail to juveniles unless there exists a real threat of association with known criminals or exposure to harmful influences. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court and the Juvenile Justice Board had wrongly focused on the gravity of the offence, which by itself is not a valid ground to deny bail under the Act. It was further argued that the intent of the legislature in enacting a reformatory law for juveniles was to prioritize their rehabilitation and reintegration into society rather than subject them to harsh custodial treatment. The petitioner also claimed that the allegations of direct involvement were yet to be proven during trial and that his continued detention would hamper his prospects of reform. Additionally, reliance was placed on precedents where courts have emphasized that the age and vulnerability of juveniles demand a more lenient approach, even when serious offences are involved.

Conversely, the Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Rajasthan, vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It was argued that the offence in question was of a heinous nature, involving the brutal murder of a person with multiple injuries inflicted by the juvenile and his co-accused. The prosecution asserted that the juvenile’s direct role in the crime had been substantiated by credible evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic findings, which justified his continued custody. The State further argued that the gravity of the offence, falling under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for murder and other related offences like Section 238(A) (causing disappearance of evidence) and Section 3(5) (common intention), necessitated a stricter judicial approach. It was also pointed out that the Juvenile Justice Board, after conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, had concluded that the petitioner possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the crime and hence should be tried as an adult. The prosecution stressed that releasing such an offender on bail would not only undermine the investigation but also erode public confidence in the justice system.

Judgement:

After hearing both parties and reviewing the case records, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg dismissed the revision petition, holding that the orders passed by the lower courts were legally sound and warranted no interference. The Court reiterated that while Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act sets out a presumption in favour of bail for juveniles, this presumption is not absolute. The Bench emphasized that the legislature has allowed courts to consider factors like the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, and the best interests of justice when deciding bail applications for juveniles accused of heinous crimes. Referring to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court observed that offences involving mental depravity, particularly murder, require a cautious judicial approach because of their profound impact on society’s moral fabric.

Justice Garg further held that the petitioner’s direct involvement in the killing, coupled with the evidence presented by the prosecution, including multiple injuries inflicted on the deceased, made it inappropriate to release him on bail at this stage. The Court observed that, although there was no specific risk of the juvenile associating with known criminals or facing moral or psychological harm, the seriousness of the allegations alone was sufficient to justify his continued detention. The Bench emphasized that granting bail in such circumstances could undermine public confidence in the justice system and compromise the integrity of the investigation and trial.

The Court also endorsed the findings of the Juvenile Justice Board, which had conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act and recommended that the petitioner be tried as an adult. The Bench noted that this recommendation was based on a careful evaluation of the juvenile’s maturity, understanding of the consequences of his actions, and the heinous nature of the offence. Justice Garg observed, “It is relevant to mention that under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), the gravity of the offence significantly influences the court’s decision to grant or deny bail. However, this factor cannot be singularly determinative in cases involving juveniles, as the law mandates a nuanced approach that considers other pertinent factors.”

In conclusion, the Court ruled that the totality of circumstances, including the brutality of the murder, direct involvement of the petitioner, and lack of compelling grounds to justify bail, weighed against the petitioner’s plea. The revision petition was therefore dismissed, and the orders of the Children Court and the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting bail were upheld. The judgment highlights the judicial balancing act between the rehabilitative aims of juvenile justice and the need to safeguard societal interests when dealing with juveniles accused of heinous crimes.