Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, June 2
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear to the subordinate courts that a juvenile’s bail plea cannot be decided without taking into consideration his “social investigation report” submitted by the probation officer.
The Bench also made it clear that a child-friendly approach was required to be adopted in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children. Also, the justice delivery system available for adults was not suitable for being applied to a juvenile or a child in conflict with law.
The ruling by Justice Suvir Sehgal came on a petition filed by a child in conflict with law through his father challenging orders dated January 15, whereby his application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was declined in a murder case by the Principal Magistrate of a Juvenile Justice Board. Also challenged was another order dated February 2 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the child’s appeal filed against the order was dismissed.
Appearing before Justice Sehgal’s Bench, the juvenile’s counsel Aditya Sanghi submitted the accusation against the petitioner was that he had caught hold of the victim and inflicted injury with a wooden stick.
Justice Sehgal observed the petitioner was less than 16 on the date of alleged occurrence and was in custody for more than a year. As such, the court would proceed to examine the social investigation report.
It was recorded in the report that his relations with his family, friends, teachers and classmates were cordial. A matriculate, he came across as a normal child. He was neither a member of any gang, nor involved in drug peddling. He did not even have a criminal past. The reason for the alleged offence was mentioned as “peer group influence”.
Directing his release on bail, Justice Sehgal asserted bail to a child in conflict with law was a rule, rejection an exception. The respondents could neither show, nor refer to, any material to explain how the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or would come in contact of known criminals.
“Mere apprehension of the prosecution without any material on record would not be sufficient to decline the prayer for bailhellip;. In case a juvenile was found guilty and convicted, the maximum period he can be ordered to spend in a special home is three years. The petitioner has spent more than one year in incarceration. Therefore, no purpose would be served in detaining the petitioner any further,” Justice Sehgal concluded.
Consider ‘social investigation report’ in juvenile bail cases: HC
{$excerpt:n}
