When CCIL Becomes An Adult During Pendency Of Trial Or Appeal What Should Be The Consideration For Grant Of Bail Or Suspension Of Sentence?: MP HC Answers

The juvenile in question had been convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had previously been denied bail.

A Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla remarked, “When the child becomes an adult during the pendency of the trial, he shall be tried as a 'child' and not as an adult and the consideration for grant of bail of the 'child' shall be as per the provisions under section 12 of the Act and the law laid down in various judgments of the court and the Supreme Court as referred herein. In the case of a child who has turned 21 years during the trial, his case shall be considered as per the provisions of section 20 of the Act."

"The discretion to deny the bail/suspension of sentence is only in exceptional cases where the safety or justice interest are involved. The report of Probation Officer shall be relevant consideration for considering an application for bail/suspension of sentence and the application shall not be rejected only on consideration of seriousness or manner of commission of offense in the case of a child who has attained the age of 21 years during the pendency of the trial/appeal. Though, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure may apply.", the Court added.

Advocate Aditya Jain appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Surya Kumar Gupta appeared for the Respondent.

In this case, Court ordered the appellant's release on bail, subject to strict supervision by the Probation Officer from the Women and Child Development Department in Shajapur. The Court clarified that the seriousness of the crime alone does not justify denying bail to a child in conflict with the law (CICL).

Upon examining the appellant's situation, the Court noted that the Probation Officer had not submitted any adverse reports regarding his behavior. Although the appellant had been found in a vehicle with a deceased individual, the evidence did not indicate that he was aware of the body’s presence. The conviction was largely based on circumstantial evidence, leading the court to conclude that continued detention was unwarranted under the circumstances.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when a juvenile turns 21 during the trial, bail considerations must still align with the rehabilitative intent of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court stated, “In such eventuality the court has to keep in mind that the primary object of the Act is the juvenile's rehabilitation not punishment.”

The Court mandated that the appellant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000, with the stipulation that he report to the Probation Officer every two months. Additionally, the Court instructed the Probation Officer to monitor the appellant’s behavior and provide updates every six months. Should any adverse report arise, the prosecution would retain the right to request the cancellation of bail.

Cause Title: Juvenile X v. The State of Madhya Pradesh