Madhya Pradesh High Court: Refusal of Bail to a Juvenile Would Be Against the Intention of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The accused/petitioner allegedly committed rape on 21.10.2019. The prosecutrix was 18-year old whereas the accused was over 17-year old. Thereafter, the accused filed a bail application. This application was filed under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind (MP) rejected the bail application on 09.12.2019. While, the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (MP) rejected the application on 18.02.2020. 

Thus, the juvenile has filed revision petition in the High Court. Moreover, this petition is under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. In this case, Mr. Alok Sharma represented the petitioner. The said case was to be heard in front of the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The counsel submitted the proof of age for application of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. According to Section 2(35) of the Act, ‘juvenile is a child below the age of 18 years.’

It was further contended, that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.12.2019. Additionally, the counsel submitted the favorable report of the Probation Officer. This report may forbid the invocation of exclusionary clause mentioned in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. This clause refers to reasonable grounds for rejection of the bail. These grounds include, to not expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger. Else it would defeat the ends of justice. 

Further, the counsel referred to the suo moto cognizance of the Supreme Court in the wake of pandemic. Here it was mentioned, that the order of the apex court via W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to consider decongestion of the prisons. This provides for release of the accused as an under trial prisoner. 

Contentions of the Respondent

The counsel has placed reliance on grounds of prior rejection of bail by the Board. The Additional Sessions Judge passed order citing the seriousness of the crime. 

Moreover, the release of the delinquent juvenile defeated the end of justice. He also contended the existence of reasonable grounds for the exception as mentioned under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the intention of the Legislature on a higher pedestal than the otherwise suggested punitive element.

It asserted:

“It cannot be lost sight off the fact that the said provision is indicative of the intent of the Legislature that a juvenile offender should not be kept in custody normally except in the circumstances narrated in Section 18 of the Act”.

Court’s Decision

The Single Judge bench of Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava passed the said Order. The Judge also said, that the “Refusal of Bail to a Juvenile Would Be Against the Intention of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015”.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -