Gravity Of Offence Not A Relevant Consideration For Denying Bail To Juvenile- Karnataka High Court
|The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, allowed a Revision Petition challenging the impugned orders of the First Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board). The Court held that gravity of offence is not a relevant consideration for denying bail to a juvenile.
The Bench of Justice Anil B Katti noted, “The Social Information Report of Probation Officer has to be the basis for the JJ Board while deciding the bail application or to pass any order keeping in mind the welfare and well being of the child. It has been further held that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile...A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail of any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the JJ Act, 2015 is available”.
Advocate Iranagouda K. Kabbur appeared for the Petitioner and Government Pleader Praveen Uppar appeared for the Respondents.
In this case, the Petitioner along with other co-accused, allegedly, raped the victim while making a video of the incident. A week later, the Petitioner raped the victim again, while threatening of releasing the said video on social media. A case was filed against the Petitioner under Section 354, 354(D), 363, 366(A), 376D read with 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Court placed reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement in the case of Vishvas v State of Punjab (CRR No.53/2021) and emphasized that the well-being of the juvenile should be given significant consideration when addressing clause (c) of the exception under Section 12 of the JJ Act. This clause pertains to the denial of bail if the Court deems that granting bail would undermine the principles of justice. Moreover, the Juvenile Justice Board is required to request a Social Investigation Report, which is crucial for the purposes of Sections 17 and 18 of the JJ Act.
“In view of the principles enunciated in the aforementioned judgment, it is evident that while dealing with the exceptions enumerated under Section 12 of the JJ Act there must be material evidence on record to invoke exception a) known criminal, b) expose made to any morale, physical or psychological danger and c) 'defeats ends of justice'. The third exception namely ends of justice being defeated has to be considered in the context of welfare of the juvenile…In view of Section 13 (1)(ii) of JJ Act, 2015, no sooner CCWL is apprehended and produced before the JJ Board, the Probation Officer has to be informed. The JJ Board has to call for Social Investigation Report which has been defined in Rule 2 (xvii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The said report becomes vital for enquiry to be done by the Board while passing orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under Sections 17 and 18 of the JJ Act”, the Court noted.
The Court placed reliance on Allahabad High Court Judgement in case of XXX Juvenile v State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (disposed of on 25.04.2023) and held that the Social Investigation Report showed that the triple test laid down in Section 12 of the JJ Act was unfulfilled and therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to bail.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned orders.
Cause Title: Manoj S/o Hanamanth Pujar v. The State of Karnataka