In CRR-2913-2022-PUNJ HC- Mandate of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act is required to be followed while dealing with bail petition when accused was juvenile on date of occurrence of crime: P&H HC
Justice Ashok Kumar Verma [20-03-2023]

Read Order: VANSH VS STATE OF HARYANA 

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 21, 2023: While noting that the reasoning given by the Juvenile Justice Board that if the accused-petitioner was  released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger was not attracted in the instant case, the Punab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the order dismissing the bail application of the petitioner (child-in-conflict with law) in an FIR registered under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma allowed the present petition by observing that there was no material or circumstance on record to hold that if released on bail, the petitioner would come into contact with the known criminals. The reasoning of the Board that it would expose the petitioner to the psychological danger did also not seem to be emanating from the given circumstances, it was opined. 

Factual matrix of the case was such that the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner on the statement of complainant-Poonam wife of Ravin Kumar, to the effect that she is resident of Sugh Majri and has two sons. On August 3, 2022 at around 7:30 P.M. her elder son Radhe told his parents that he was suffering pain on his body part of the latrine.

 On checking, the complainant found a wound on his anus. The victim narrated the whole incident to his grandmother. On asking, he disclosed to the complainant that the petitioner had committed an immoral act with him in Dharamshala. During the course of investigation, medical examinations of the victim as well as the petitioner were got conducted and as per medical opinion of the MLR of the victim, possibility of sexual assault was found. As per medical opinion of the MLR of the petitioner, he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. The petitioner was arrested. The petitioner was found to be a juvenile and his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. 

The bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board through order dated September 5, 2022.  The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Appellate Court through the impugned order.  Hence, the present revision was preferred. 

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence i.e. August 3, 2022 and he was found about 12 years and 05 months, as such he was below 15 years of age on the relevant date and that the petitioner ought to have been dealt with under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

On the contrary, the State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer made in this petition.  Counsel for the State submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner were heinous in nature, therefore, he was not entitled to grant of regular bail.

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted, “There was no denying the fact that as on the date of occurrence, the petitioner was juvenile. Thus, while dealing with the bail petition of the petitioner, the mandate of Section 12 of the Act is required to be followed”. 

In view of the same, the Court took into account Section 12 of the POCSO Act. In pursuance of the same, the Court noted that a perusal thereof would show that the conditions for denial of the bail to the juvenile are stipulated under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act. The reasoning given by the Juvenile Justice Board that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger was not attracted, the Court further noted. 

There was no material or circumstance on record to hold that if released on bail, the petitioner would come into contact with the known criminals. The reasoning of the Board that it would expose the petitioner to the psychological danger does also not seem to be emanating from the given circumstances, the Court further remarked. 

Thus, in view of the observation stated above, the petition was allowed.