Read Order: A, Juvenile in conflict with law (name withheld) v. State of Haryana

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 8, 2022: While dealing with a criminal revision petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mere involvement of the petitioner (a child in conflict with the law) in another case would not be in itself a ground to deny him concession of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (J.J. Act). 

The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan further said,“As per Section 12 (Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with the law) of the J.J. Act, the general rule is bail and bail is to be denied only in cases falling under exceptions provided in the Section.”

The Court was approached with a criminal revision petition filed against the order of rejection of bail of the petitioner and the order of dismissal of his appeal by the Court below. 

When the petitioner was apprehended by the police party, contraband was recovered from his conscious possession. Thereafter, he was denied bail on the ground of his involvement in another case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and it was also argued that on being enlarged on bail he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. However, the mother of the petitioner gave an undertaking before the Additional Sessions Judge for taking care of the petitioner and for ensuring that concession of bail would not be misused. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was in custody since October 2021, the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was presented and no recovery was to be made from him. He further submitted that recovery of contraband was of non-commercial quantity and that the parents of the petitioner would ensure proper conduct on part of and compliance of bail condition by the petitioner. 

On the contrary, the State Counsel opposed the grant of bail by submitting that antecedents of the petitioner were not clean as he was involved in another FIR. 

After considering the rival submissions, the Court allowed the present criminal revision petition and set aside the orders rejecting the bail and dismissing the appeal, considering the facts and circumstances in totality and the gravity of the offence. 

Also, the parents of the petitioner were directed by the Court to monitor the movement of the petitioner and also to arrange for counselling for him, so as to ensure his non-indulgence into any such offence again. 

Thus, without recording any findings on the merit of the case, the petition was allowed.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment