Punishment Must Be Inflicted For Reformative Result Rather Than Being Punitive In Nature: Bombay High Court Grants Bail To 23-Yr-Old Accused
The Bombay High Court emphasised that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial accused needs to be considered especially when the age of the accused is young.
Justice Milind Jadhav, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court grants bail to a 23-year-old young man saying that the punishment must be inflicted for a reformative result rather than being punitive in nature.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Bail Application filed by the accused seeking bail in connection with the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(a)(c), 4, 5(1)(a)(b)(d), and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed, “… if a chance is given to the Applicant because of his young age by enlarging him on bail, there is a possibility that he will be remorseful and repent in retrospect for his actions. This is a chance required to be taken by the Court because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a reformative result rather than being punitive in nature.”
The Bench emphasised that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial accused needs to be considered especially when age of the accused is young so that the accused gets an opportunity/or is given an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his livelihood honourably from the perspective of social integration.
Advocate Viral Rathod appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Accused while SPP Hemlata Deshmukh and Amicus Curiae Dormaan J. Dalal appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
There were total four accused persons arraigned in the crime. The Applicant was the Accused No. 1 and was incarcerated since December 2023. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were shown as absconding accused and Accused No. 4 was a 25-year-old woman who was a mobile smart card seller and crypto currency trader who transferred Rs. 2,000/- online to the Applicant at the behest of Accused No. 3. Accused No. 4 after being arrested initially was thereafter dropped from the chargesheet for want of evidence under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Applicant, a young accused, had an excellent academic record. He had completed his Certificate Course in Mechanic Diesel from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) recognised by National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). He cleared the All India Trade Test for Apprentices in December 2023 with a score of 72.75% pursuant to completion of his apprenticeship of one year in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai. As per the prosecution case, an intelligence input information was received about the alleged offence. Subsequently an FIR was lodged and the Applicant was arrested. The Special Court rejected his Bail Application and hence, he was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “The Applicant was a young boy aged about 21 years when he received the friend request which is quite common in these days. His academic credentials and future prospects would persuade me to consider his case for grant of bail. He has no antecedents. If the situation would be considered in a vacuum, the factors having a bearing in the Court’s mind would be distinct from what it is now; this is because the Applicant is at the threshold of his career and adult life having an excellent academic background, hence at this stage subjecting him to further custody would make it highly likely that he would be entangled in the vicious cycle and downward spiral of criminality making him a hardened criminal posing a future perpetual threat to the society. Hence every semblance of a chance in this direction should be taken by the Court.”
The Court while considering the Applicant’s young age and his academic pursuits, was of the view that if he is enlarged on bail, the Applicant’s family will undoubtedly do their duty to make every effort and attempt to reform and aid him in leading a reformed life while on bail rather than keep him in prison and expose him to criminal outlook and life in prison.
“This is a chance which the Court must take considering the young age of accused. By considering this Court is not stamping approval of any of the actions of Applicant regarding the alleged crime in question. Court is also equally conscious of the nature of the offence. The age of the Applicant is very young”, it further noted.
The Court observed that if the Applicant is incarcerated in prison further, there is every possibility that he might loose faith in the institution and society at large and may tread the path of criminality or would waste his life as incarceration in prison statistically shows that it exposes many youth to abuse.
“There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels that any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative approach in punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders – accused before committing such accused to further custody and give such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the Society”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Application and granted bail to the accused on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
Cause Title- Gaurav Arjun Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:16928)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Viral Rathod and Vishwatej Jadhav.
Respondent: SPP Hemlata Deshmukh and Amicus Curiae Dormaan J. Dalal.
