Case title:
Zubair Ahmad Teli Vs UT of J&K
Date of Order:
28/04/2022
Bench:
Justice MA Chaudhary
Parties:
Zubair Ahmad Teli – Petition
UT of J&K – Respondent
SUBJECT
According to a recent ruling by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, it was observed that it was not the legislature's intention for the JJ Board to take the social investigation report into account before deciding whether to grant a bail request under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act.
FACTS
- This revision petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam in a judgment dated 07/09/2021.
- In the above-mentioned judgment, the Hon’ble Judge revoked the interim bail grant order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in an order dated 01/06/2021.
- It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order of the court below was in blatant violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- The juvenile justice board had granted bail in favour of the juvenile offenders in accordance with the law, and after careful consideration and application of mind, handed them over into the custody of the responsible parties against an undertaking. However, all of this was discarded when the impugned order was passed.
- It has been clearly laid out in the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016, that there is no need for any preliminary evaluation or to seek any social investigation report from the concerned Probation Officer, Child Welfare Officer, or Social Worker, in case of release of a juvenile pending investigation by the Juvenile Justice Board, but were not taken into consideration when the current order was passed.
- Hence this petition came into being.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below erred in ruling that the social investigation report required by Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act must be received before any consideration of granting bail to the juvenile offender.
- He has further submitted that the court below sourced the necessity of having the social investigation report as required by Section 15 for consideration of bail plea and also had recourse to the interpretation of the aim and object of the Act, despite the fact that there was no such requirement in terms of clear, unambiguous, and explicit provisions of the Act.
- Finally, it was requested by the petitioner to overturn the contested judgment and reinstate the Juvenile Justice Board decision, which had given both petitioners bail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- Since the alleged offence committed by the petitioners was so heinous, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Board was required to consider the petitioners' bail application in light of Section 15 of the Act because it was admitted that one of the petitioners was older than 16 years old.
- It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the Lower Court had accurately revoked the bail that the Juvenile Justice Board had granted by understanding the phrase "goals of justice" to include justice for all parties involved in the dispute as well as serving the interests of the general public.
- The learned attorney further argued that the Juvenile Justice Board had made a perverse decision in violation of the law that was required for the grant of bail under the Act, 2015, and that the respondents/complainant had not been given a reasonable opportunity to protest or contest the petitioners' bail application while the juvenile justice board was considering it.
- Finally, it was requested to uphold the contested ruling and dismiss the petitioners' immediate revision petition
JUDGMENT
- The bench noted that Section 12 of the JJ Act expressly laid out the Juvenile Justice Board the authority to consider a plea to bail, regardless of any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or of any other law currently in effect, and to release a juvenile on bail with or without a surety or to place them under the care of any suitable adult.
- Unless, the court held, a person shall not be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that doing so will put him or her in danger or cause them to associate with known criminals or put them in danger morally, physically, or physiologically.
- The court additionally stated that because the nature of the offense is not a criterion in determining whether to grant or deny bail to a minor in trouble with the law, bail cannot be denied to a minor in trouble with the law on the basis of the seriousness of the offense involved.
- The bench emphasized that Section 12 of the J.J. Act mandates that juveniles in dispute with the law be granted bail and that denying bail to such a person is an exception rather than the rule.
- Finally, it was summarized that the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children's Court should decide whether to try a child who has come into conflict with the law as the primary venue for the trial. It won't limit the Juvenile Justice Board's ability to assess the application submitted in accordance with Section 12 of the J.J.Act, 2015.
CONCLUSION
The bench came to the conclusion that taking into account the aforementioned factors, the Court was of the opinion that juveniles in conflict with the law are generally entitled to be released on bail under Section 12 of the J.J.Act, regardless of the seriousness of the offense, the preliminary assessment as contemplated by Section 15 of the Act, and the difference in age below or above 16 years.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
