Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[7] As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of application by submitting that the provisions of Act, 2015 does not provide for effecting of arrest and therefore, condition precedent of arrest for invoking Section 438 of the Code does not arise and therefore, the order of the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) holding application under Section 438 of the Code is not maintainable, is justified.

[7.1] Learned APP has also relied upon the decision in the case of Suriya v/s. State of The Tamil Nadu by Madurai Bench of Madrash High Court in Cri.O.P. (MD) No.433 of 2016. Learned APP has also relied upon the decision in the case of Vinayak Pandey R/CR.MA/6978/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021 v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, in M.Cr.C.No.22489 of 2007.

[21] The issue may arise when the anticipatory bail is granted, the child in conflict with law will still be subjected to provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015. Reliance placed by the learned APP upon the decision of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Suriya v/s. State of Tamilnadu (Supra) referred to Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, 2000. Relevant paras-8 and 9 read as under:-

"8. A conjoint reading of Sections 6 and 12 of the Act would reveal that to deal with all the proceedings including bail, etc, in respect of juvenile, a Juvenile Board is the appropriate authority and it has been constituted exclusively for this purpose and no Court, either Sessions Court or High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings pertaining to a juvenile. Therefore, it is clear that the bail application of a juvenile can be entertained by the Board only when he is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before the Board, otherwise the application cannot be entertained. If the juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before the Board, then certainly bail application will be filed under Section 12 and the same has to be decided by the Board only, but not by the High Court or Court of Sessions. However, Section 52 of the Act gives right to a juvenile, who is accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, if he has been refused bail, to file an appeal under Section 52 of the Act within 30 days from the date of such order or after the expiry of the said period if prevented by sufficient cause to prefer an appeal within time, to the Court of Sessions, and in case the appeal fails, he can file a revision against the appellate order before the High Court in accordance with Section 53 of the Act. Therefore, the Act specifically envisages that the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act can be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Sessions, only when the proceedings comes before them in appeal, revision or R/CR.MA/6978/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2021 otherwise.

[22] The aforesaid view of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court considers a point that in case of rejection of any bail application by the juvenile by the High Court would render the juvenile remedy- less. In this regard, it is pertinent to observe that for any child in conflict with law, necessary procedure to be adopted as prescribed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and therefore, even where the application under Section 438 of the Code is decided in any which way, the protection of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 will always be available.

[22.1] The question with regards to fruitfulness to invoke Section 438 of the Code for the child in conflict with law may arise, in other words, even of invoking Section 438 of the Code no useful purpose will be served as the child in conflict with law have to undergo the process of Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The parameters of practical usage and/or application of parameters cannot lead to inferring of bar of application of a provision, Section 438 of the Code in the present case.

[22.2] Moreover, considering the Section 1(4) of the Act, 2015, it is clear to the extent that it does not exclude the application of other Acts, CRPC in the present case and therefore, this Court in respectful disagreement with the view expressed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in case of Suriya v/s. State of Tamilnadu (Supra).