Bail to juvenile not ‘must’ in all cases, society’s concerns cannot be ignored: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently said that society’s concerns cannot be ignored while interpreting the provision for grant of bail to a child-in-conflict-with-law, particularly in cases of heinous crimes. .Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal said the aim of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which has a liberal provision for bail to juveniles, is to take care of both the child-in-conflict-with-law as well as the society.It is necessary to strike a balance while considering the matter of bail of a juvenile and the Court should take into account all factors including the best interest of the child, demands of justice to the victim and the concern of the society at large, the bench commented.“The provisions of bail for juvenile cannot be interpreted to work only for the benefit of the juvenile ignoring the cries of the family of the deceased child. Whenever child becomes victim of offences, let alone heinous offence like rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault, murder, society craves and cries for justice,” it observed..The observations were made by the Court while dismissing bail plea of a 16-year-old, who along with a co-accused, allegedly killed a 17-year-old boy last year after their demand for ransom of ₹20 Lakh was not met.The counsel representing the juvenile told the Court that he was falsely implicated in the case and that there was no evidence to show that if he is released on bail, he would associate with any criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger.His father is ready to give an undertaking that he would keep him in his custody and look after him properly, the Court was told.“Juvenile Justice Board [JJB] as well as appellate Court have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and have passed the impugned order in a cursory manner without considering the object of the law enacted for the benefit of juvenile and have refused to release him on bail,” it was submitted..However, the State argued that the juvenile had committed a heinous offence in a pre-planned manner after kidnapping the boy and sending ransom message on the mobile phone of victim’s father from the same phone which was with the victim.After considering the submissions, the Court observed that the gravity of offence alone cannot be a ground to reject a bail petition.However, it opined that when a helpless child is murdered only because the father fails to pay ransom, the depravity of mind of a juvenile is very much manifest..It then examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and noted that the JJB is normally under an obligation to release the juvenile. However, it also noted that release can be refused in certain situations.“From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015, it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into an association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice,” it observed..The Court, thus, opined that the provisions itself makes it apparent that bail to juvenile is not a “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, it reasoned..It added that while all decisions regarding the child should be based on primary consideration of their best interest, the demands of justice of the other side cannot be simply brushed aside..In the present case, the Court said the kidnapping of a child and then murder for an unmet demand of ransom cannot be dubbed as a child’s mistake committed during youth or adolescence.It was an act motivated with passion to obtain heavy ransom from the father or family members of the deceased child, the Court opined..Thus, the Court said while gravity of offence cannot be considered, it also cannot be overlooked that discretion of bail to such a person will obviously tantamount to subverting the course of justice. The object of Juvenile Justice Act is not only reformatory but is retributive also to some extent and there should be a balance between conflicting demands of accused and victim, the Court said.“The aim and object of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is to achieve not only the welfare and betterment of juvenile by extending to him services of reformatory nature, so that he can be brought back to main stream of society as a person of healthy mind, but also to address the concern of society at large," the single-judge underscored..Granting bail to the juvenile in this case will not only expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger but will also defeat the ends of justice, the Court said. It also noted that the Social Investigation Report has revealed that he was in habit of consuming liquor and also smoked and used drugs.“In view of above, juvenile in conflict with law is not entitled to bail for commission of aforesaid offence,” it ruled..Advocate Ahadulla Usmani represented the child in conflict with law.Advocate Papiya Ghosh represented the State.[Read Judgment]