Bail To Juvenile Is Not "Must" In All Cases: Madhya Pradesh HC Upholds Rejection Of Bail To Juvenile Accused Of Kidnapping & Murdering Minor Child
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the rejection of bail to a juvenile accused of kidnapping and murdering a minor child observing that granting bail would deny justice to society by showing misplaced sympathy to the juvenile.
The Bench noted the depraved and malign mentality of the juvenile accused of the pre-planned heinous offence. The Court observed that the "child in conflict with law" had a habit of drinking liquor and smoking. While the gravity of the offence alone was not a ground to reject the bail application, the murder of a "helpless child of 16 years" due to unpaid ransom clearly demonstrated the juvenile's depravity.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed, “The provisions of bail for juvenile cannot be interpreted to work only for the benefit of the juvenile ignoring the cries of the family of the deceased child. Whenever child becomes victim of offences, let alone heinous offence like rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault, murder, society craves and cries for justice. By showing misplaced sympathy to a juvenile, who kidnapped a minor child for ransom and later on murdered him due to non payment of desired ransom the society is denied justice which is not and cannot be intention of law.”
The court further added: "On a bare perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that bail to juvenile is not "must" in all cases as it can be denied by assigning proper reasons. The law does not say that once a person is found juvenile, he should be released on bail notwithstanding the other facts and circumstances of the matter. It is also explicit that the bail can also be denied if the juvenile's release, in the opinion of the court, would defeat the ends of justice."
Advocate Ahadulla Usmani represented the applicant, while P.L. Papiya Ghosh appeared for the respondent.
Last year, a Class-XI student went missing after leaving home to attend a program at a temple. Despite search and enquiry, he was not traced until his dead body was discovered sometime later.
The police investigation revealed that the juvenile had kidnapped the minor along with an accomplice for a ransom of ₹20 lakh. They used the minor’s friend's mobile phone to send ransom demands to his father. When the demands went unmet, the juvenile and his accomplice murdered the minor, concealing his body under stones in a stream.
A charge sheet was filed against the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board (Board). An initial bail application filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the Act), was rejected by the Board. This decision was upheld by the trial court.
“The aim of the Juvenile Justice Act is to take care of both child in conflict with law as well as the society. As such, Section 12 of the Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to give advantage to only juvenile in conflict with law ignoring the concern of the society,” the Court remarked.
The Court explained that the aim and object of the Act was to achieve not only the welfare and betterment of the juvenile by extending “reformatory services” to him, so that he can be brought back to “mainstream of society” as a person of healthy mind, but also to address the concern of society at large. Therefore, even child victims needed justice. The Act was enacted for the need and care of juveniles. “Therefore, a striking balances is necessary while considering the matter of bail of a juvenile from the angle of best interest of the child, demands of justice to the victim and the concern of the society at large,” the Court remarked.
“The murder of a helpless and innocent child shows the depravity of the mind of the person committing such offence. The kidnapping of a child for ransom and in absence of receipt of ransom murder of kidnapped child cannot be treated to be an act, which can be dubbed as a child’s mistake committed during youth or adolescence,” the Bench stated.
Consequently, the Bench held that the trial Court had not committed any error in rejecting the appeal for bail and in affirming the order passed by the Board.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Child Under Conflict With Law v. The State of Madhya Pradesh