In CRM-M-27262-2022-PUNJ HC- Sec. 438 CrPC does not create any different class for minors to be treated differently for bails; None of these statutes like JJ Act creates any express bar for considering bail applications filed under CrPC on behalf of minor: P&H HC Justice Anoop Chitkara [30-06-2022]

Read Order: Lovedeep Singh v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 1, 2022: While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea by a juvenile in conflict with the law, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has recently held that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not create any different class for minors to be treated differently for bails. 

The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara further added, “Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, prescribes a procedure for the juveniles in conflict with the law whom the investigating agencies apprehend. Section 12 of bail under the Juvenile Act is much more lenient than sections 437 to 439 of Cr.P.C., and none of these statutes create any express bar for considering bail applications filed under Cr.P.C. on behalf of a minor.”

A juvenile in conflict with the law, apprehending arrest in an FIR registered under Sections 458, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC came up before the Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the grant of anticipatory bail. 

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not bar any application by a juvenile. Further, the Counsel added that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. On the other hand, the counsel representing the State opposed bail. 

After considering the case advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner, the Court observed at the very outset that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not create any different class for minors to be treated differently for bails. The Bench further added that Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, prescribes a procedure for the juveniles in conflict with the lawyer whom the investigating agencies apprehend, while according to Section 12 of the Juvenile Act, bail is much more lenient than Sections 437 to 439 of Cr.P.C., and none of these statutes creates any express bar for considering bail applications filed under Cr.P.C. on behalf of a minor. 

Apart from this, the Court opined that the petitioner was a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the Court was of the view that the petitioner made a case for bail. 

“Given above, keeping in mind the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, if the investigator proceeds with the arrest, then in such an eventuality, the petitioner shall be released on bail, by furnishing bonds to the Investigators satisfaction”, the Court held.