Even If Juvenile Is To Be Tried As Adult, His Bail Has To Be Considered As Per Parameters Provided U/s. 12 Of JJ Act: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) requires a child to be released on bail, even if they are to be tried as an adult in their trial. The Court noted that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) is a special provision that supersedes the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Court allowed the Petition of a juvenile who was accused of killing two police officials and was thereby charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Arms Act (AA) challenging the denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissal of the appeal by the Trial Court. The Court also granted bail to the First Petitioner who was charged in relation to the same incident.
Justice Deepak Gupta noted, “However, Section 12 of the Act, 2015 contains a mandate to release a child on bail when he is apprehended or detained in connection with an offence. It is a special provision, which stands to the exclusion of Code of Criminal Procedure. Parameters for considering an application for bail filed by a juvenile under Section 12 of the Act are clearly distinguishable from the application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Even after a juvenile is to be tried as an adult, still his bail is to be considered under the parameters provided under Section 12 of the Act”
Advocate Sukesh Jindal appeared for Petitioner no. 1, Senior Advocate R.S Bains appeared for Petitioner no. 2 and Deputy Advocate General Parveen Kumar Aggarwal appeared for the State/Respondent.
On 30 June 2020, the body of two police officials was discovered on Jind-Gohana Road. The deceased had sustained fatal injuries from sharp-edged weapons, and their official vehicle was found nearby. Subsequent investigations revealed that a group, including the First Petitioner, had gathered in the village on the night of the incident. They had consumed alcohol and were later joined by two girls (including Second Petitioner) with whom some of them had relationships. A confrontation ensued when a police motorcycle approached the group. In the course of this confrontation, one individual (Co-accused) allegedly stabbed the two police officers with the Petitioners, leading to their deaths. Further investigations resulted in the arrest of multiple individuals involved, and a final report was filed against the Petitioner and 2 others under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. A separate report concerning the Second Petitioner was submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board.
A set of Petitions were submitted by the Petitioners, accused under Sections 302, 148, 149, 186, 323, 307, 353, and 404 of the IPC, as well as Section 25 of the AA. The First Petitioner prayed for regular bail, while the Second Petitioner challenged the order of the Trial Court. The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the order of the Juvenile Justice Board denying bail to the minor Petitioner.
With regard to the First Petitioner, the Court observed that the case was primarily based on his disclosure statements. His involvement in the incident was limited to his presence at the crime scene and his identification of the knife used by his co-accused. The Court asserted that the First Petitioner has been in custody for over three years with no clear benefit to be gained from his continued detention.
The Court noted that the Second Petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the crime ( between the ages of 16 and 18). The Court noted that while the crime itself, which involves murder, was undoubtedly serious, Section 12 of the JJ Act mandates the release of a child apprehended or detained in connection with an offence.
“Apart from above parameters, the matter may also be considered on merits, as it does not appeal to the reason that bail to a juvenile is to be tested only with reference to the disentitling conditions mentioned in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, even if he is entitled to be released on the basis of merits of the case”, the Court noted.
The Court referred to the cases of Dharmender-Juvenile v. State of U.P. and others [2018(7) ADJ 864] and CCL ‘A’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2021 Cri.L.J.1251]. The Court held that the incident itself appears to be a matter of dispute and will be subject to a trial.
The Court noted, “On one hand, prosecution allegation is that Amit killed the two police officials with knife with the help of co-accused including the petitioners; on the other hand, there are allegations that the two police officials were demanding money from Amit, started molested the two girls and asked Amit to send the two girls to the police station for night and it is in order to avoid further molesting that in a fit of rage, he killed both of them. It is a matter of trial”.
Accordingly, the Court granted Bail to the First Petitioner and set aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court.
Cause Title: Neeraj v. The State of Haryana [Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:106250]
