The Punjab and Haryana High Court vehemently criticized the Act of the Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Justice Board, stating that an “uncaring and inept discharge of functions” by the judicial officers entrusted to govern the mechanism of “welfare legislation” would wreck the whole concept of constituting such Boards.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioner, minor aged 17 had filed the revision before the Court against the order dated 18.03.2020 wherein his application for bail was dismissed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurdaspur. The petitioner was of the two accused in a FIR registered in August, 2019 under sections 363,366,376,506,34 and 120- B IPC along with Sections 4 and 6 of the POSCO Act, 2012 .
Case of the Prosecution
The Prosecution alleged the two accused of abducting the victim girl. According to Prosecution on 21.08.2019, the petitioner and the co-accused, covered their faces with the aid of handkerchiefs and abducted the victim girl. Petitioner was arrested on 30.082019 and was confined in a Special Home at Gurdaspur. He applied for bail before the Presiding Officer of the Juvenile Justice Board; however the same was rejected on 18.03.2020.
Observation of the Court
Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that the co-accused who is the actual offender was discharged of all charges as the prosecution failed to prove the offence of the offender beyond reasonable doubt, hence the co- accused was acquitted on 03.03.2020.
The Single Judge was astonished by the fact that the petitioner referred the discharge of all the charges of the co-accused; however the Principal Magistrate was of the opinion that the Petitioner was present at the scene of the heinous crime. The Judge failed to understand that when the actual offender his released for not committing the actual offence, then on what grounds was the Petitioner not granted the bail. Moreover the Principal Magistrate stated that the evidence of the prosecutrix is yet to be recorded simply acting ignorant of the fact that the co-accused was already acquitted as recorded by him in Page 2 of the order. Moreover he even mentioned the repealed Act of Juvenile Justice i.e. of year 2000 instead of Juvenile Justice Act 2015.
The reason stated by the Principal Magistrate for grant of bail was that on issuance of bail there are chances that the minor will come into association with a known criminal and thus the same will endanger him psychologically, morally and physically, the ground mentioned under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. However the ground stated by the Principal Magistrate was taken as unreasonable grounds for the denial of the bail of minor and in the opinion of the Bench there was no concrete reason to believe on the same and was only seen as a “mechanical reproduction” of legal provision also given the fact that he referred the acquittal of the co-accused and then contradicted himself by stating that the evidence of the prosecutrix was not recorded.
Thus the Bench allowed the revision thereby asserting the objective behind constituting of such judicial post and offices and laid stress on the duties and functions in respect to protection of Juveniles that are required to be exercised by the concerned authority diligently and at last condemned the manner in which the JJB Head proceeded in the present case.
Case Details
Before: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Ashish Masih v. State of Punjab
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
