Punjab and Haryana High Court: Nuh court failed to consider 'bail, not jail' rule for juveniles

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that a court of an Additional Sessions Judge in Nuh had failed to take into consideration Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which says bail, and not jail, is the rule.

Justice Vikas Bahl asserted: “A perusal of the impugned order will show that the provisions of Section 12 of the Act had not even been considered and it was not even remotely observed therein that the case of the appellant is covered by any of the exceptions. The appellant was 16 years old on the day of the alleged incident.”

The assertion by Justice Bahl came in a case, where a juvenile in custody since July 24, 2019, was denied bail. The Bench took note of the fact that a co-accused in the case, an adult on the date of the alleged incident, had already been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of the court, vide order dated November 16, 2021, and his custody period was lesser than that of the appellant.

Justice Bahl, during the course of hearing, was told that an FIR in the matter was registered for murder, attempt to murder and other offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 342, 506, 307 and 302 of the IPC at the Rozka Meo police station in Nuh district.

The counsel for the appellant-juvenile told Justice Bahl’s Bench that neither any specific injury was attributed to him, nor was he stated to be armed with any specific weapon. The dispute was between two persons and the injuries on the victim’s head were inflicted by a co-accused. It was also submitted that there were 11 accused. The present appellant was nominated on the pretext of being the son of one of the accused.

Justice Bahl asserted Section 12’s perusal showed that bail was the rule and not jail in a juvenile’s case. The same was to be refused only in case the court came to the conclusion, on the basis of material, that the case was covered under three exceptions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act.

Among other things, the Section says bail can be declined only in case a juvenile’s release was likely to bring him in association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or physiological danger, or where his release will defeat the ends of justice.

Granting bail to him, Justice Bahl referred to the cases of giving relief, where allegations against the petitioner-juveniles were of inflicting injuries. Allowing the plea, Justice Bahl added the trial was likely to take a long time, in view of the pandemic.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.