On December 20, 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while allowing a bail application of the petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence, observed that the juvenile, who is a child in conflict with the law, should be granted bail as a matter of general rule subjected to the condition that if the case would fall within the proviso of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, then, the bail could be denied in the exceptional circumstances and in the cases where the parameters contained in the proviso are fulfilled.
Brief Facts:
According to the allegations contained in the FIR, the police received an information with regard to an illegal drug peddling pertaining to heroin and on the basis of that information, the police raided a place from where there was a recovery of 16 packets of heroin weighing 16 Kgs 820 gms of heroin from a person named Ranjit Singh. Thereafter, a further investigation was conducted by the police and the aforesaid co-accused made various disclosure statements, on the basis of which, the brother of the petitioner, namely, Sikander Hayat and some other persons were nominated.
Thereafter, name of the petitioner was nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement of the aforesaid Sikander Hayat, who himself was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused, who was apprehended along with the heroin. Thereafter, on the basis of further disclosure statements, heroin of 4 kg was also confiscated from an Innova Car on the basis of the statement made by Sikander Hayat and allegedly by the petitioner.
The petitioner, being a juvenile and especially below the age of 16 years at the time of the occurrence, was subjected to an inquiry by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar. After undergoing 01 year and 04 months in a special home, the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging an order and judgment passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar, and the learned Appellate Court, denying bail to the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a juvenile, a child in conflict with law, had already undergone about 01 year and 04 months in a special home. Almost half of the total maximum period as per provisions of section 818 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, was exhausted by the petitioner there. It was additionally submitted that according to the Social Investigation Report, the petitioner went on this path because of the neglect by his parents and the bad company of his brother. However, his brother was an adult and was being tried separately by the learned Judge Special Court under the NDPS Act and was already in custody.
The further added that the only reason for the denial of his bail was his brother’s bad company and his parent’s negligence. Whereas, in fact there was no bad precedent of the petitioner and he was not a habitual offender and was not involved in any other case. So, as far as the bad company of his brother was concerned, the same was not a ground for making the case fall within the proviso of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Moreover, he was already in the custody and the reasoning given by the Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Appellate Court was, therefore, without any basis because the petitioner was not stated to be with the company of any other person or any hardcore criminal.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the state submitted that as per the Social Investigation Report, the petitioner was in the bad company of his brother and there was an element of parental neglect. He further submitted that, since the quantity involved in the present case was about 21 kgs of heroin, the petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that the petitioner had already faced incarceration for 01 year and 04 months and out of 26 cited witnesses, no witness was examined to date. Even as per the prosecution and the affidavit filed by the State, the role of the petitioner was with regard to giving information to the police along with his brother that the heroin of 04 kgs was kept in an Innova car from where the recovery was made. However, even as per the affidavit filed by the State, no recovery was done from the petitioner.
The court further added that the law with regard to the bail to a juvenile, who was a child in conflict with the law, was governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Ordinarily, a juvenile, who was a child in conflict with the law, would be granted bail as a matter of general rule subjected to the condition that if the case fell within the proviso to the aforesaid Section 12 of the Act, then, bail could be denied in exceptional circumstances and in the cases where the parameters contained in the proviso were fulfilled.
The court further observed that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, was not involved in any other case, and his brother was already in the custody. Hence, the total custody of the petitioner and the fact that the case of the petitioner did not fall under the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the petitioner deserved the concession of bail.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was allowed. The order and the judgment passed by the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, were set aside and quashed, hence, allowing the bail application of the petitioner.
Case Title: XXXXXXXX Vs. State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Case No.- CRR No.802 of 2022
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Narang
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Kunal Vinayak
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
