In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has underscored that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile. The judgment, delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed on June 14, 2024, in the case of Juvenile ‘Xyz’ Thru. His Father vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others (Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2023), has set aside the previous orders denying bail to the juvenile accused.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a juvenile, referred to as ‘Xyz’, who was implicated in a serious crime under Sections 376 DB, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and 5m/6 POCSO Act. The incident, reported on December 30, 2021, involved the alleged rape and assault of an 11-year-old girl by two boys, including the juvenile ‘Xyz’. Despite the severity of the charges, the juvenile’s counsel, Mohammad Alishah Faruqi and Mohd. Suhail, argued that ‘Xyz’ was falsely implicated and highlighted the lack of injuries on the victim as per the medical report.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the juvenile should be granted bail despite the gravity of the offence. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge had previously denied bail, citing potential risks to the juvenile’s welfare and the ends of justice. However, the defense contended that the juvenile had no prior criminal history and had already spent a substantial period in detention.
Court’s Decision
Justice Shamim Ahmed, after careful consideration of the submissions and the records, ruled in favor of granting bail to the juvenile. The court emphasized that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, bail for a juvenile is a matter of course unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger.
Important Observations
The court made several critical observations in its judgment:
1. Irrelevance of Offence Gravity: “The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile,” the court noted, referencing its previous ruling in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu vs. State of U.P..
2. Substantial Period of Detention: The court acknowledged that the juvenile had already undergone a significant period of institutional incarceration, which is capped at three years under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.
Also Read
3. Lack of Criminal History: The court highlighted that the juvenile had no prior criminal history and there was no evidence suggesting he was a threat to society.
4. Judicial Precedents: The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Kamal vs. State of Haryana and Takht Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which supported the principle of granting bail when a substantial period of the sentence had already been served.
