Period Of Detention May Constitute Fresh Ground For Second Bail Application: Supreme Court
The Court also held that the bail prayer of the juvenile ought to have been considered after the investigation was over.
The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of filing a second bail application, the period of detention may constitute a fresh ground.
The Court also said that the bail should have been granted once the investigation was over and the co-accused, who is also a juvenile, was released on bail.
The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "In our view, the High Court committed an error in holding that the subject revision being a second revision is not maintainable. This we say so, because, firstly, it was not a second revision on the same cause of action. The first revision arose from rejection of the first bail prayer filed while investigation was pending. Second, there is no embargo on filing a second bail application. No doubt, a second bail prayer may have to be considered on new grounds. But, in the context of bail, period of detention may, in circumstances, constitute a fresh ground. More so, in the context of a Juvenile where bail is the rule and denial of it is an exception. Third, when the second bail application was filed, investigation was over, and co-accused, who was also a juvenile, was admitted to bail."
Advocate Ashima Gupta with AoR Ayush Anand appeared on behalf of the Appellant-Accused, whereas AAG Sansriti Pathak appeared on behalf of the Respondent-State.
Background
An appeal was filed impugning an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Appellant-Accused under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the JJ Act’).
The first bail prayer of the Appellant-Accused, who is a juvenile, was rejected on the ground that it might expose him to association with bad company. The order of rejection of the bail prayer was appealed under Section 101 of the JJ Act before the Appellate court. The Appellate court dismissed the appeal against which a revision was filed before the High Court under Section 102, which was also dismissed.
The High Court rejected the revision on the ground that the same is not maintainable, being a second revision based on no new grounds.
Observations of the Court
The Court said, "In such circumstances, the bail prayer of the appellant ought to have been considered on merit and should not have been rejected on the ground of maintainability."
The Court also considered the Social Investigation report on the record and said that the rehabilitation of the Appellant-Accused in his family is considered appropriate.
"Social investigation report does not disclose that there are persons with criminal antecedents in the family of the appellant, or that on being released on bail, he would fall in bad company. In such circumstances, in our view, the High Court ought to have granted bail to the appellant taking into consideration the mandate of Section 12 of the JJ Act.", the Court held.
Conclusion
The bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of rejection of the bail prayer of the Appellant-Accused. The Court ordered the Appellant-Accused to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the matter was disposed of.
Cause Title: Juvenile In Conflict With Law v. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18636/2025]
Appearances:
Appellant-Accused: AoR Ayush Anand, Advocates Ashima Gupta, Pankaj Singhal, Chandan Kashyap, Harshita Raj and Monu Kumar.
Respondent-State: AAG Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G., AoR Nidhi Jaswal, Advocates Shagufa Khan, Aman Prasad.