Case title:

YUVRAJ v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Date of Order:

9th OCTOBER 2023

Bench:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL

Parties: 

PETITIONER – YUVRAJ

RESPONDENT -THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

SUBJECT: The case's focus is on whether a minor in trouble with the law qualifies for pre-arrest bail, how that process works, and how the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) should be interpreted and applied in this situation.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 –

1. Section 1 (4)
2. Section 10
3. Section 17

• Code of Criminal Procedure

1. Section 438

OVERVIEW: A juvenile seeking pre-arrest bail is in conflict with the law, with conflicting views among High Courts. The court has issued a notice returnable in four weeks, and the JJ Act plays a significant role in the case.

ISSUES RAISED: Whether a juvenile in conflict with the law should be permitted to seek pre-arrest bail under the regular provisions of the Cr.P.C. instead of being directed to the Juvenile Justice Board, especially in light of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:

1. The petitioner argued that when action is taken under Section 10 of the JJ Act, a juvenile who is in trouble with the law should be able to apply for pre-arrest bail rather than being sent to the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner also reminded the court that no order can be made against a juvenile under Chapter VIII of the CrPC, according to Section 17 of the JJ Act.
2. The petitioner, a minor in trouble with the law, makes the case that he or she has a right to request pre-arrest bail in accordance with the regular Cr.P.C. provisions.
3. A major point of contention is the High Court's prior denial of the pre-arrest bail application.
4. The petitioner cites the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which doesn't expressly forbid using provisions of the Cr.P.C. to obtain pre-arrest bail for juvenile offenders.
5. The petitioner cites a split among the country's high courts, stating that five of them allow juveniles to apply for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code while the other four don't.
6. The issue of evidence gathering challenges and potential court delays resulting from sending juveniles to the Juvenile Justice Board is brought up.
7. In support of equity and fairness, the petitioner emphasises that minors should not be denied the option to request pre-arrest bail, which is provided to adults under the Cr.P.C.
8. They ask for a week to provide contradictory rulings from various High Courts to support their case.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS: The Court took note of the petitioner's argument that there are currently several conflicting rulings from various High Courts on the aforementioned subject. The petitioner told the court that while five High Courts had ruled that the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be enforced in cases where a juvenile was in trouble with the law, four other High Courts had reached a different conclusion.

CONCLUSION: Finally, on Monday, October 9th, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol issued notice to the State in an appeal filed against a Rajasthan High Court decision that had denied the juvenile petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail.

The Court took note of the petitioner's argument that there are currently several conflicting rulings from various High Courts on the aforementioned subject. The petitioner told the court that while five High Courts had ruled that the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code were maintainable in cases where a juvenile was in conflict with the law, four other High Courts had reached a different conclusion.