Even If Juvenile In Conflict With Law Is To Be Tried As An Adult, His Bail Application Will Be Considered U/S 12 JJ Act And Not CrPC: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that even if a child in conflict with the law has been ordered to be tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the child’s bail application will be rejected. If it is to be evaluated within the scope of Article 12 of the Law, it cannot be evaluated within the scope of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty ruled so while allowing the bail petition filed by a minor accused of sexually assaulting his younger sister and causing her to become pregnant and sought to be tried before the Special Court as an adult.

The court said:

“Section 12(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, a child brought before the Board shall be granted bail subject to the following conditions: Section 12(1) of the 2015 Act. The condition of the article. This is therefore very clear even if the child is ordered to be tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of Law 18(3). In terms of the 2015 bail application, Article 12 of the 2015 Law will be valid and the bail application cannot be evaluated within the scope of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

He added:The only embargo on not releasing a child on bail is if there appears to be reasonable cause to believe that his release would place the child in any association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that the release of such a person would be a reasonable cause for the child to do so. Defeat the ends of justice.”

The accused has been prosecuted under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4, 5(j)(ii), 5(n), Prevention of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. Pursuant to Article 5(l) and 6 of. He had approached the special court seeking bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. to be rejected. He then appealed to the high court.

Amicus curiae, although an order was issued against the plaintiff under Article 18(3) of the Act of 2015 to file a case against him as an adult for the purpose of releasing the plaintiff, who is a child, on bail, the Amicus curiae appointed in the presented case, Article 12 of the Act is valid and the child is granted bail. must be released.

Additionally, the victim girl and her parents appeared before the Special Court and stated that they had no objection to the plaintiff’s release on bail. The victim girl and her family did not cooperate for DNA Testing.

The prosecution opposed the defense saying that the petitioner had committed a heinous crime against the minor victim girl, who was her sister. If granted bail, he will likely tamper with prosecution witnesses.

Examining the records, the panel pointed out that three categories of deprivation of rights were envisaged in the provision of Article 12(1) of the 2015 Act, but this would not hinder the consideration of the plaintiff’s application.

He said:The nature of the petitioner’s crime is unlikely to link him to any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is no such report on record showing that the applicant is likely to be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger. The victim girl and her parents stated that they did not see any danger from the applicant and appeared before the Special Court and stated that they had no objection to the applicant’s release on bail.”

Noting that the victim girl and her parents did not cooperate for the DNA Test, and that the adoptive parents of the child born to the victim refused to give the child’s blood sample for DNA Testing, the court said:The petitioner has been detained since 24.07.2023. The hearing of the case has not started yet. The prosecution has testified a total of 22 indictment witnesses in the present case, and petitioner is being tried as an adult for the alleged crimes. Therefore, the possibility of the trial being completed in the near future is very remote.”

Accordingly, “The application filed by the applicant before the Special Court under Section 439 of the Cr.PC had to be treated as an application filed under Section 12 of the 2015 Act. Failure to do so resulted in a perversion of justice and a violation of the plaintiff’s rights. freedom was exercised.”

The court accepted the petition and ordered the release of the accused upon execution of personal bail in the amount of Rs 50,000 with single surety in return for surety and other conditions.

Appearance: Petitioner’s Counsel Praveen S.

Lethif B, Amicus curiae

HCGP M Diwakar Maddur for R-1 and R-2.

Quote Number: 2024 LiveLaw (Snow) 458

Case Title: XXX AND STATE WOMEN’S POLICE CENTER & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2024 9582

Click Here to Read/Download the Order