Delhi Court orders rehabilitation for teen addict held for theft, notes State's failure to provide 'enabling environment for lawful conduct'

The welfare State cannot withdraw its maternal embrace because a child, having just “crossed over to the wrong side of 18, becomes non-suited to be treated as a child” by definition, said a Delhi Court in case of bail. .The Court thus granted bail to a teen addict, stated to be "neo-adult," who was arrested on house-breaking and theft charges..To that extent, it is also reflective of a failure of the State to provide the enabling environment for his lawful conduct as a young citizen who has just turned 19. The remedy in some degree must therefore also come from the State.Court.A report, akin to the Social Investigation Report (SIR) concerning juveniles in conflict with law, called by the judge, showed that the teen was a drug addict.“To that extent, it is also reflective of a failure of the State to provide the enabling environment for his lawful conduct as a young citizen who has just turned 19 . The remedy in some degree must therefore also come from the State. This court, indeed being a vital part of the State, thus intends to advance the accused towards Drug De-Addiction as well as meaningful counselling, training and employment,” said Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Gogne.While granting bail, the Court wondered if his release would amount to justice in the present case.“After all, a plea for bail is essentially rooted in the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of the country,” it was pointed out.The order, therefore, argued if liberty, without meaningful exercise of the same, is liberty at all as contemplated by the Constitution..The “perineal (sic) quest of a judge” in order to understand the "dispensation of meaningful justice" prompted the Court to note that the Preamble stresses on the social and economic, apart from political, facets of justice.“The exercise of passing a just order in the case of young offenders, especially in the age group 18-20 years, entitled to be termed neo-adults, must be visited with knowledge of their social and economic bearings,” the order stated.Only then would a Court understand the circumstances that might have contributed to a first offence of a neo-adult, the order stated.While releasing the present accused with such a perspective, the Court wanted to involve “some measure of social and economic rehabilitation” in case of young offenders to prevent their “deeper decline” into frequent crimes.The Court, as a result, wanted the report to serve as a suitable template in eliciting social and economic information about neo-adult offenders. It relied on one of the rules in the Juvenile Justice Model Rules 2016 inter alia Rule 11, which provides for calling for the SIR by the Juvenile Justice Board.“Such a report can indeed serve as a convenient reference point and template when the court requires the social and economic circumstances of offenders of any age group, especially neo-adults, to be elicited with a view to holding their hand towards rehabilitation,” it was noted..The Court underscored that the present accused was embroiled in an alleged offence of house break and attempted theft that was found to be not “really dissimilar” to a child under 18 years of age in conflict with law..‘Remedy to some degree should come from State’.The Court found the teen's report to have "painted a vivid picture" on "socialisation, disconcerting social engagement and rank financial incapacity" of the accused and his family. The applicant was stated to be the middle child among two siblings aged 22 and 18 years, respectively, and studied only till Class 8.Some of the reasons mentioned in the report for him having left the government school were found to be his "failure in his last class, peer group influence and bullying.” “…many of his friends were illiterate. His family income for a family of five is ₹20,000. The accused himself works in the field of denting and painting and earns ₹8,000 per month whereas his father is abroad (Qatar),” it stated.The report further indicated that the teenager had committed the offence to finance his needs to procure drugs and stated that he might require de-addiction and counselling to stand a chance of reforming himself.“The data from the report is quite incisive. It would therefore not be a case of conjecture and surmises for the court to prima facie express that the want of one parent, a low family income, early drop out from school, drug use among peer group and the possible drug use by the applicant himself may have together propelled him to allegedly have committed the house break and attempted theft at the house of the complainant,” the order reasoned.The report, the court noted, was also reflective of a failure of the State to provide the enabling environment for his lawful conduct as a young citizen who has just turned 19 . “The remedy in some degree must therefore also come from the State. This court, indeed being a vital part of the State, thus intends to advance the accused towards drug de-addiction as well as meaningful counselling, training and employment,” it said..The remedy in some degree must therefore also come from the State. This court, indeed being a vital part of the State, thus intends to advance the accused towards drug de-addiction as well as meaningful counselling, training and employment.Court.De-addiction and Counselling.Although the present FIR hadn't alleged any offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Court granted opportunity to the accused to overcome his drug use. It was also learnt that the Central Delhi Legal Services Authority had recently launched a programme called “Project Avsar” to offer counselling, training and employment facilities to undertrial prisoners, especially keeping in mind the pandemic situation.“The present applicant can certainly take benefit from the said scheme which recognises the devastating economic impact of the pandemic and provides job opportunities for undertrial prisoners,” it stated.The teenager, while being allowed bail, was directed to report to the director/in-charge of the Society for Promotion of Youth and Masses, a de-addiction centre, on his release from custody. He was further directed to report to the secretary, Central DLSA, Delhi for enrolment in “Project Avsar”.Additional Public Prosecutor Yogendra Adari represented the State whereas Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared for the teenager..[Read order]