In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Gita Gopi, granted bail to a juvenile involved in a high-profile case of abetment of suicide and extortion. The decision came after a detailed hearing of the Criminal Revision Application No. 1287 of 2024, filed by the juvenile’s mother under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging the previous orders of the lower courts denying bail.
Background of the Case
The case centers around a 17-year-old juvenile, referred to as the “Child in Conflict with Law” (CCL), who was accused of abetment to suicide and extortion under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The charges were filed following an incident where a family, allegedly harassed and pressured by the main accused for money, committed suicide by consuming poisonous substances.
The First Information Report (FIR No. 11185001240661 of 2024), filed at Bhanvad Police Station in Devbhumi Dwarka District, includes allegations that the main accused forced the deceased to execute a written note under threat. The juvenile is said to have recorded the entire incident on his mobile phone, and this act was captured on CCTV footage, which became a crucial piece of evidence in the case.
Legal Issues Involved
The central legal issues revolved around whether the juvenile’s act of recording the incident constituted abetment of the offence and if the conditions for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act were satisfied. The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Krina P. Calla, argued that the juvenile’s presence at the crime scene and his act of recording the incident demonstrated active participation in the crime. The prosecution invoked Section 54 of the BNS, which pertains to the presence of an abettor during the commission of an offence.
On the other hand, the juvenile’s advocate, Mr. P. P. Majmudar, argued that the courts had failed to consider the juvenile’s lack of intent and understanding of his actions. He contended that the child’s behavior was driven by curiosity, not criminal intent, and highlighted that the juvenile had no direct involvement in the extortion or the subsequent suicide.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Gita Gopi, in her oral judgment, highlighted several crucial points. The court noted that both the lower courts had failed to consider the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates the release of a juvenile on bail unless there are substantial reasons to believe that such release would bring the juvenile into contact with criminals or pose a risk to their moral, physical, or psychological well-being.
Quoting from the judgment, Justice Gopi remarked, “The role attributed to the CCL is that of videographing or recording the entire event… which would rather serve as supporting evidence for the prosecution rather than implicate the child in criminal culpability.” The court further emphasized, “Childlike inquisitiveness should not be penalized as criminal intent, especially when the juvenile’s presence was coincidental and not intended to aid in any criminal activity.”
The court criticized the lower courts for not seeking a report from the Probation Officer to assess the possible risks associated with releasing the juvenile. It observed that there was no direct involvement of the juvenile in the crime to warrant continued detention. Justice Gopi concluded that keeping the juvenile in detention could adversely affect his mental, physical, and emotional development.
Outcome and Directions
Granting bail to the juvenile, the court set aside the orders of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka, and the Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board, Khambhalia, dated August 6, 2024, and July 24, 2024, respectively. The juvenile was released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 10,000, to be executed by his mother.
The court further directed the Probation Officer to monitor the conduct of the juvenile and submit quarterly reports to the trial court. It also instructed that if needed, the child should receive therapy and psychiatric support to facilitate behavioural modification. The juvenile’s mother was asked to ensure he does not fall into bad company.
