Classification Of Offences Under Bailable & Non-Bailable Sections Won’t Be Relevant For Granting Bail To Juvenile: Patna HC
The Patna High Court reiterated that the classification of offences under the bailable and non-bailable sections would not be relevant for the purpose of granting bail to a juvenile.
The Court noted that the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected only under one of the three conditions: (i) The release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal; (ii) The release is likely to expose the said person to moral or physiological danger; and (iii) The release would defeat the ends of justice.
The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred against the order of the Special Judge by which a juvenile was denied bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha , referring to Lalu Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 833, observed:"classification of the offences under the bailable and non-bailable sections would not be relevant for the purpose of grant of bail to a juvenile and the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected only under one of the three conditions”
Advocate Gopal Kumar Jha appeared for the appellant while APP Mukeshwar Dayal appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the appellant-juvenile was named in the FIR and was in observation home since April 10, 2023. The allegation against him was that he committed rape/penetrative sexual assault upon the informant who claimed her age through FIR as 17 years, on the false pretext of marriage. The appellant appeared juvenile on the date of occurrence and his age was assessed by the Juvenile Justice Board as 16 years and 5 months on the alleged date of incident.
The counsel for the appellant submitted for any of the social reasons, the marriage of the juvenile could not be negotiated with the informant. It was further submitted that the brother of the informant and her relatives made an attempt for forced marriage with the juvenile but after intervention of co-villagers, it was not materialized. Hence, it was argued that the present implication was only with a view to create a pressure to solemnize the marriage.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “Nothing appears from the impugned order where social investigation report/probation report of appellant-CCL is discussed that he could not reform himself as to join the main stream of the society.”
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record as well as the period of incarceration of the appellant and in the best interest, the Court was of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the court below is not in consonance with the aims and objectives of the Act.
“In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, as appellant-CCL adjudged 16 years and 05 months on the alleged date of occurrence, where allegation of rape/penetrative sexual assault prima facie made in the background of false promise of marriage, accordingly, the appellant, above-named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)”, directed the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Special Judge.
Cause Title- XX v. The State of Bihar
