Only Section 12, Juvenile Justice Act governs bail for Juvenile persons; Sections 437, 439, 482 CrPC have no applicability: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a juvenile's bail plea must always and only be considered on the criteria and parameters set out in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 ('JJ Act')..The general principles for grant or denial of bail under Sections 437 and 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) have no applicability in such cases, the Court has clarified (CCL 'A' vs State). .In view of specific provisions contained in Section 12 of the JJ Act, the Court has further held that Section 482, CrPC has no application in the matter of grant or denial of bail to a juvenile person. .A judgement to this effect was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anup J Bhambhani. .The bail applicant before the Court was a juvenile, who was less than 17 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. .He was an accused in a case registered under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. .The case had culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, New Delhi. .After a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board that there was a need for the trial of the applicant as an adult, the matter was transferred to the designated Children’s Court. .The applicant moved the High Court for his release after two bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court functioning as the Children’s Court. .The State opposed the application primarily on the ground that since the applicant had been set-up for trial as an ‘adult', the bail application filed under Section 12, JJ Act could not be entertained. .It was submitted that the applicant ought to have moved the bail application as an adult, under section 439, CrPC..In view of the above stand, the Court observed that first, it ought to be examined if a child in conflict with law de-juré becomes an ‘adult’ following the JJB's preliminary assessment under Section 15(2) of the JJ Act. .To address the query, the Court referred to the provisions of the JJ Act and noted that the preliminary assessment of JJB was further subject to a decision by the Children’s Court. .It explained that even after the Children’s Court confirms the preliminary assessment of the JJB under Section 19(1), the child is tried as an adult subject to safeguards under the CrPC, considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child-friendly atmosphere..The Court thus opined, ."Clearly therefore, even when a child is sent-up for trial as an adult before a Children’s Court, the child does not become an adult or ‘major’, but is only to be treated differently considering the heinous nature of the offence alleged and consequent need for a stricter treatment of the offender, though still as a juvenile in conflict with law... .If the intention of the Legislature was that upon such assessment, the child would de-juré become an adult, then the question of there being a separate Children’s Court to try him with specific safeguards provided for the trial would not arise.".The Court then proceeded to answer if a child’s bail plea was governed by the provisions of the CrPC. .The Court noted that Section 12, JJ Act, which dealt with the grant of bail to a child expressly contained a non-obstante phrase and left "no manner of doubt" that the application of the CrPC was excluded. .It said, "Section 12 is a specific provision in a special statute that deals with the matter of bail; and accordingly, application of section 439 Cr.P.C. is also necessarily excluded.".Emphasizing on the need to draw a distinction between a bail application under Section 12, JJ Act and under Section 439, CrPC, the Court clarified that the grounds for grant or denial of bail under the two were very different. As explained in the order, ."(For) a bail plea under section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court must consider the effect of grant or denial of bail not only on the accused but on the investigation and prosecution of the case, on the victim, on the witnesses as also in the context of the evidence to be collected, amongst several other considerations ... the considerations for denial of bail (under Section 12, JJ Act) are to do with the interests and welfare of the child...the aspects to be considered for denial of bail under that provision are not the usual and ordinary considerations that weigh with the court when considering a bail plea under section 439 Cr.P.C.".The special dispensation contained in the JJ Act cannot be diluted, stunted or modified by applying the conditions and restrictions contained in Section 439, CrPC, the Court said. .Further, since Section 12 set out the provisions to deal with bail for juveniles, the Court also held that there was no warrant for the High Court to exercise its powers under section 482, CrPC..The need to exercise inherent power arises if there is a void in the legislation on a given matter, it said. .The Court thus concluded, ."A bail plea filed on behalf of a juvenile must always and only be considered on the criteria and parameters set-out in section 12 of the JJ Act, and the general principles for grant or denial of bail under section 437 or section 439 Cr.P.C. have no application in such a case."Delhi High Court.As far as its own power under Section 12 read with Section 8 was concerned, the Court held that the power of the High Court was co-extensive with those of the JJB. .Justice Bhambhani held that the High Court had the power to entertain proceedings of the first instance as well as appeals or a revision from an order of the JJB or the Children’s Court denying bail..It further clarified that in view of Section 101 and Section 8(2) of the JJ Act, apart from filing an appeal against the denial of bail by the Sessions Court, a juvenile was not precluded from filing a fresh bail plea. .In view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by it, the Court proceeded to admit the applicant to regular bail pending proceedings against him. .The Court directed the appointment of a probationary officer for the applicant to maintain "general oversight and supervision" over the applicant, to ensure that he does not fall into any undesirable company or is exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and to ensure that his release does not defeat the ends of justice..Advocates RD Rana, Arvind Sharma appeared for the applicant. .APP GM Farooqui appeared for the State. .Read the Judgement: