Complainant Does Not Have Unqualified Right To Be Heard In Juvenile Bail Proceedings: Delhi High Court

A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, “Thus, in light of the statutory scheme and legislative intent, it is evident that there is no unqualified right for the complainant to be heard at every stage of bail proceedings under the JJ Act, 2015. The involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., rehabilitation over retribution‟ must remain paramount in any such determination.”

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vineet Jain, while Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner herein lodged a missing person’s report at the police station when his cousin, the deceased, had gone to meet the accused. During the course of the investigation, the police examined the CCTV footage from the vicinity, which revealed that the nephew of the accused was seen moving the scooty of the deceased. Accordingly, the accused, his son, who is the Child in Conflict with Law in the present case (CCL-SAH), and his nephew were arrested by the police.

Upon interrogation, the accused and his son, CCL-SAH, confessed that a dispute concerning a financial matter had arisen, during which the accused instructed his son to bring a gun and kill the deceased. After killing the deceased, the accused then disposed of the body and attempted to destroy evidence. Offences under Sections 302, 201, and 34 o of the Indian Penal Code, 1908, (IPC) were added, and a chargesheet was filed against the accused and his nephew, while CCL-SAH was produced before The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as a Child in Conflict with Law.

As CCL-SAH was above 16 years, a Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was required to determine if he should be tried as an adult. The Petitioner applied before the JJB, citing the heinous nature of the crime and CCL-SAH’s active role in it. However, JJB granted him bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, ruling that he lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and rejected the plea to try him as an adult.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner appealed before the Sessions Court, challenging the bail and preliminary assessment, citing inconsistencies in CCL-SAH’s birth records and lack of fair opportunity for the prosecution. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the JJB’s order, stating due process was followed.

The Petitioner therefore, approached this Court seeking to set aside the impugned order.

Contentions

The Petitioner contended that the Sessions Court had failed to recognize the JJB’s improper assessment of the mental and physical capacity of CCL-SAH under Section 15 of the JJ Act, and that CCL-SAH had full decision-making ability, warranting his trial as an adult, but JJB mechanically relied on an inadequate preliminary assessment report while denying the Petitioner an opportunity to present his arguments, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Petitioner submitted that the contradictions in JJB’s order, the flaws in age determination, and the erroneous grant of bail despite the heinous nature of the crime would warrant by this Court.

The Respondents contended that the impugned order was passed in strict compliance with the JJ Act as JJB properly conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15, considering the relevant reports and correctly concluded that CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to be tried as an adult. The age of CCL-SAH was not in dispute, as school records establish his date of birth making him a juvenile at the time of the offence and bail was granted as per the mandate of Section 12 of the JJ Act, which favours rehabilitation over punishment. The respondent emphasized that the Petitioner has failed to establish any legal infirmity in the process, and the mere seriousness of the offence does not override the statutory protections afforded to juveniles, making the present revision petition misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the issue of whether the CCL-SAH was correctly determined to be juvenile, the Bench held that the JJB determination of age was conclusive and stated, “ Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules mandates a hierarchical approach for age determination of a juvenile, requiring the Court, Board, or Committee to rely on firstly matriculation or equivalent certificate, secondly, date of birth certificate from the first attended school (excluding play schools), or thirdly, birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat. Only in the absence of these documents, a Medical Board's opinion may be sought. If an exact assessment is not possible, the authority may, for recorded reasons, grant the benefit of a one-year margin on the lower side. The evidence obtained as per this hierarchy is deemed conclusive proof of age.”

Insofar as the issue of whether the preliminary assessment was concerned, the Court rejected the Petitioner’s contention that the JJB had mechanically relied on reports without scrutiny, and observed that the Social Investigation Report did not indicate a pattern of criminal behaviour or premeditation beyond the immediate circumstances of the offence, and therefore, the assessment was based on expert findings rather than mere procedural formality.

Addressing the issue of grant of bail to the CCL-SAH by the Sessions Court, the Court observed that the JJ Act mandated a presumption in favour of bail, which could only be denied if the prosecution demonstrated that one of the three statutory exceptions is met, which the Petitioner had failed to establish. The Court held, “Section 12 of the JJ Act provides that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be released on bail with or without surety, notwithstanding the provisions of the CrPC, unless there exist reasonable grounds for believing that firstly, the released is likely to bring the child into association with any known criminal, secondly, the release is likely to expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or thirdly, the release would defeat the ends of justice.”

“Consequently, in the absence of any cogent grounds justifying denial of bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, this Court finds that the grant of bail to CCL-SAH was justified and in accordance with law” the Court held.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Mohd. Munib v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation No: 2025:DHC:1588)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Vineet Jain

Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar along with SI Satish Kumar, Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Swapnil Tripathi, Rehan Khan, Chandverr, Sachit Sharma