A Juvenile Is Not Debarred From Seeking Relief Of Anticipatory Bail, P&H HC Observed

In a major development, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh (“HC”) observed that even though the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“Act”) is silent on the provision of anticipatory bail, the same cannot be construed as the intent of the legislation, to the effect that it did not intend to make this relief available to the ‘children in conflict with law’. The HC said that if such was the intention of the legislature, then specific provision to that effect would have been incorporated in the Act, just like there is one, in The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  

Brief facts of the case: 

• The complaint was filed one Rakesh Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner (i.e. juvenile) and his family came to his field and started abusing and beating him, and gave him several blows, before parting with his cash worth INR 5,000/-, mobile phone, and a gold chain. 

• The petitioner (i.e. juvenile) while denying the allegations, himself alleged that there is a cross-version of the incident as well, where the complainant forcibly trespassed into the house of petitioner’s family and had inflicted injuries upon them, in which case the police did not take any action.  

• The petitioner stated that one of the accused (i.e. the mother of the petitioner) in the present case F.I.R, has been granted interim-bail by this Hon’ble Court, and the petitioner sought relief for his anticipatory bail.  

What were the observations made by the High Court?  

Justice H.S Madaan of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, while coming to the conclusion that the petition is maintainable, made the following observations: 

Purpose of the Act 

The HC observed that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is a piece of social welfare legislation, which was enacted to take care of the welfare of the children and to avoid turning into hardened criminals.  

It observed that the basic purpose of this legislation was to ensure that a minor child, who sometimes comes in conflict with the law, is to be tried in a manner and under such environment, which straightens him to the path of reformation, rather than allowing such minor children to mix up with the hardened criminals in the jail, and then themselves turn into such criminals.  

The court stated that this is exactly the purpose of putting the juvenile in conflict with the law, in the separate observation homes, rather than in normal jail. And further, even if a juvenile in conflict with law is convicted, then instead of awarding deterrent punishment to him, his rehabilitation and social integration is sought, in view with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 

Provision of anticipatory bail 

The court observed that if this special enactment is silent in regard to a particular provision (i.e. Pre-arrest Bail), then the Act has to be read along with the general law i.e. Criminal Procedure Code. A negative inference can certainly be not drawn that the legislature intended to debar a juvenile from seeking relief of pre-arrest bail, because if it was so, then a specific provision in that regard would have been enacted into the Act.  

The HC also gave an example of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which clearly bars the grant of pre-arrest bail to a person alleged to an accused person under that act.  

The Court observed that even otherwise, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides that the children below the age of 18 years, coming within the definition of juvenile, be treated with kindness and compassion even if they are found to be in conflict with the law. Therefore, the Court observed that it could certainly not be the intention of the legislature that such juveniles are denied the relief of anticipatory bail, which is available to the other persons, who are accused of heinous offenses. 

With these observations, the High Court, in its order dated 24.07.2020, directed that in case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer (I.O) or the arresting officer.  

The relevant excerpt from the order of the Hon’ble High Court is mentioned as below: 

“Under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation by contacting the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and render all sorts of co-operation. The petitioner is to surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer if he has got one, otherwise to furnish an affidavit in that regard. If in the meanwhile, he is arrested, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.” 

The HC adjourned the matter to 19.08.2020.