By Vikrant Rana, Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court denied bail to a school student from Uttarakhand accused of distributing obscene videos of a 14-year old girl, an act which allegedly drove her to suicide. [1]
This decision delivered by the bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, marks a significant deviation from the customary practice of granting bail to juveniles irrespective of the gravity of their offenses.
History of the Case:
The case traces back to October 22, 2023 when the girl was found missing from her house. Unfortunately, she was later found deceased. The deceased father lodged a report accusing the boy for creating and disseminating obscene videos of his daughter, which led to deceased tragic decision to end her life.
The learned counsel for the accused who was a Child in Conflict with Law (“the CIL”) requested for bail submitting that “the CIL has a family to look after; his father and mother both are working; they will take care of the revisionist (i.e., the CIL); revisionist is a young child; it would affect his future deeply. Therefore, he may be given into custody of his mother.”
However, initially, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) rejected the bail application of the CIL vide order dated January 10, 2024. The CIL was charged under the following sections, namely, Section 305 (abetment of suicide of a child) and Section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 along with Section 13 (use of children for pornographic purposes) and Section 14 (penalty for using child for pornographic purposes) of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Aggrieved by the said order of the JJB, an application for revision was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital seeking bail.
However, the same was also dismissed vide order dated April 01, 2024 as the Uttarakhand HC upheld the JJB’S decision, emphasizing the boy’s undisciplined behavior and association with negative influences. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani, presiding over the case, expressed concerns that releasing the boy might expose him to further moral, physical or psychological harm and undermine the interests of justice and emphasized on the relevance of social investigation report in such matters.
“Having considered the social investigation report, the medical examination report, the report from the school, this Court is of the view that the best interest of the child would be served if he is not granted bail. If he is released on bail, it would definitely defeat the ends of justice. The court below has rightly rejected the bail application. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed.”[2]
Decision of the Supreme Court:
Following the High Court’s ruling, the boy’s mother filed a petition before the Apex Court[3] for bail, arguing that the boy should be placed in her custody rather than in a reform home, highlighting the parent’s readiness to provide care.
Despite these arguments being placed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal upheld the High Court’s decision reaffirming the denial of bail vide order dated May 20, 2024.
“After carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court at this stage.”
The Court emphasized the need for a cautious approach given the serious allegations and potential risks involved. This decision, of not granting bail to a minor accused by the Supreme Court, marks a notable juncture in the jurisprudence of Juvenile Justice Law, where the yardstick for punishment is maintained at the severity of the crime committed and not the age of the accused.
Who is a Child in conflict with law?
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) is defined under section 2(13) of the Act as a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of offence.
Offences under the Act have been classified under three heads:
- Petty offences– under Section 2(45)- offences for which the maximum punishment under the IPC or any other Law is imprisonment up to three year.
- Serious offences-under Section 2(54) – offences for which the maximum punishment under the IPC or any other Law is imprisonment between three to seven years, and,
- Heinous offences-under Section 2(33) – offences for which the minimum punishment under the IPC or any other Law is imprisonment for seven years or more.
Can a Child in Conflict with Law be released on bail?
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Child Protection and Care) Act 2015 talks about the bail to a person who is a child alleged to be in conflict with the law. The provision states that the juvenile who has committed a bailable or non-bailable offense can be released on bail with or without surety. However, the juvenile cannot be released if there are reasonable grounds that would bring the child in association with any of the known criminals or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
In 2012, in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed, that the Juvenile Justice Act had laid down separate trails for children and juveniles, as “it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence”.[4]
However, if the accused was involved in the commission of crime of heinous nature like rape or murder, giving him the benefit of a benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, would defeat the purpose of meeting the ends of justice as mentioned under Section 12 of the act.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the complexities involved in juvenile justice, balancing the need for rehabilitation with the imperative of safeguarding the community and ensuring justice for victims. The ruling passed by the Apex Court in the concerned case reflects a nuanced consideration of these factors, reinforcing the legal framework’s responsiveness to the severity of crimes committed by juveniles.
Ahana Bag, Junior Associate at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this Article.
[2] X v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 728
[3] Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 7097-7098/2024