“Unless It Defeats Ends Of Justice…”: Supreme Court On Denying Bail To Juvenile

The Supreme Court has said bail cannot be denied to a juvenile in a criminal case unless the court records that the minor is likely to be associated with a known criminal, be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger, or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih set aside the orders of the Rajasthan High Court and Juvenile Justice Board denying bail to a juvenile, who was booked for sexually assaulting a minor.

“….the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed,” the bench said while noting that the juvenile in conflict with law has been in custody for over one year, and directed that he shall be released on bail without surety.

“However, the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board shall issue appropriate directions to the jurisdictional Probation Officer to keep the juvenile under supervision and to submit periodical reports to the Board about the conduct of the Juvenile,” the bench said in its order of August 14.

Referring to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), the bench said that from the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be “necessarily released on bail”, with or without surety, or placed under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person unless proviso is applicable.

The bench referred to the proviso to sub-section 1 of section 12 which said, “Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision”.

It said the court has perused all the orders passed earlier by the JJ Board, the special court and high court, and especially the order dated December 11, 2023 passed by the JJ Board.

“There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to a juvenile in conflict with law,” it said.

The top court said its attention is invited to the psychological assessment report of the juvenile which records that he does not belong to high-risk category, and against the column “worry list of child” it is mentioned that there was “no worry”. The report is signed by a qualified clinical psychologist, it noted.

“Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to sub-section 1 of section 12 (of JJ Act) was applicable, the juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for the last one year,” the bench said. The top court noted that the boy was taken into custody on August 15, 2023 and sent to a juvenile care home. The chargesheet was filed in the case on August 25, 2023.

The bench said since his custody he twice filed bail pleas under section 12(1) of the JJ Act but his prayers were rejected and even the high court had dismissed his appeal against denial of bail.