Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. As is seen from a bare reading of section 439 Cr.P.C., while considering a bail plea under section 439 Cr.P.C. the High Court must consider the effect of grant or denial of bail not only on the accused but on the investigation and prosecution of the case, on the victim, on the witnesses as also in the context of the evidence to be collected, amongst several other considerations, including those set-out in section 437(3) Cr.P.C. On the other hand, section 12 mandates that in the first instance when a person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence, is brought before the JJB (or the High Court which has co-extensive powers in view of section 8(2)), such person shall be released on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C. Section 12 further stipulates that a person may be so released with or without surety, or may even be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. Though the proviso to section 12(1) does say that a person, who is apparently a child, shall not be released on bail "... if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical and psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice ...."

it is important to note that the considerations for denial of bail are to do with the interests and welfare of the child. Section 12 also requires the JJB, and therefore also the High Court, to record reasons for denial of bail and the circumstances leading to a decision to deny bail.

40. In section 12 the Legislature has in the first place mandated the grant of bail to a child; and has said that the only grounds on which bail may be denied to a person, who is apparently a child, are (i) the danger that the child's release is likely to bring the child in association with a known criminal; or (ii) there is risk to the moral, physical or psychological safety of the child itself; or (iii) if the child's release would defeat the ends of justice.

49. In conclusion therefore, this court is of the opinion that:

(i) Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no application to the matter of grant or denial of bail to a juvenile since there are specific provisions contained in section 12 of the JJ Act, the powers under which section are also available to the High Court;

(ii) Section 439 Cr.P.C. has no application to the issue of grant or denial of bail to a juvenile since, again, a juvenile is to be dealt with by a special statute, namely the JJ Act, which contains a specific provision for bail, namely section 12 of the JJ Act;

(iv) A bail plea filed on behalf of a juvenile must always and only be considered on the criteria and parameters set-out in section 12 of the JJ Act, and the general principles for grant or denial of bail under section 437 or section 439 Cr.P.C. have no application in such a case.

50. Having answered the jurisdictional objections raised by the State, and coming back to the factual backdrop of the present case, what weighs with the court at this stage is firstly, that the only specific role attributed to CCL-A is that he was present at the spot, where the other juvenile alongwith one of the co-accused, had made a cellphone-call to the deceased, calling him to the spot on the pretext of smoking hookah; where the deceased, as per the allegations, was done to death by knife blows. To be clear, the allegation is that the two adult co- accused and the other juvenile attacked the deceased with knives one- by-one. Secondly, no weapon was even sought to be recovered from CCL-A and the only articles recovered from him were his own clothes, after which he was produced before the JJB and remanded to the Observation Home. Thirdly, even the cell-phone number from which certain calls are alleged to have been made has not been associated with CCL-A exclusively, inasmuch as it is admittedly not registered in his name and the charge-sheet says that CCL-A's whole family has been using the same cell-phone. Fourthly, even as per the allegations, after allegedly committing the crime, CCL-A is stated to have run away to his own house, which belies the allegation that CCL-A was attempting to evade the law. Next, there is no allegation that any threats have been received on behalf of CCL-A pressurizing the complainant to withdraw the case; CCL-A has been in the Observation Home for about 1 year and 3 months, where his overall conduct is stated to be 'satisfactory' and he is being used as 'help' in the kitchen. Next, though the JJB has made a preliminary assessment that there is need for trial of CCL-A as an adult under sections 15 and 18(3) of the JJ Act, no final decision in this regard has been taken by the Children's Court as required under section 19 so far; and therefore the objection taken by the State that since CCL-A has been sent-up for trial as an 'adult', he must apply for bail as an 'adult' is even otherwise baseless. Lastly, since the present application has been filed before this court after the bail plea was rejected by the learned Sessions Court/Children's Court, and as held above, a bail plea under section 12 is maintainable before this court as an appellate, revisional or even as a proceeding of first instance, it is irrelevant whether the present application is treated as a bail application of first instance or as an appeal or revision from rejection of bail by the Sessions Court under section 101(5) of the JJ Act.