Principal Sessions Court Jammu Sets Aside Juvenile Justice Board Order; Says Gravity of Alleged Offence Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail
JAMMU, NOVEMBER 13: The Principal Sessions Court, Jammu, has granted bail to a 17-year-old juvenile accused in a rape case involving a seven-year-old girl, observing that the seriousness and gravity of an alleged offence, by themselves, cannot be the sole ground for denying bail to a child in conflict with law.
Principal Sessions Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina passed the judgment while allowing an appeal filed under Section 101(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging an earlier order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jammu, which had rejected the juvenile’s bail application.
The case pertains to FIR No. 212/2026 registered at Police Station Nagrota, Jammu, under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
As per the case details, the juvenile, whose date of birth is recorded as September 2, 2009, was apprehended on August 22, 2026. His status as a juvenile was not disputed before the court.
The Juvenile Justice Board had earlier declined bail, primarily taking into consideration the heinous nature of the alleged offence, the observations regarding parental supervision in the Social Investigation Report, the proximity of the victim’s residence to the residence of the juvenile’s maternal aunt at Sidhra, Jammu, and the pendency of the investigation, including the awaited Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
However, while examining the matter, the Sessions Court observed that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act establishes release on bail as the general rule for a child in conflict with law, with refusal of bail being permissible only under specifically prescribed exceptions.
The court emphasised that such exceptions must be supported by reasonable grounds and objective material rather than assumptions, conjectures or general apprehensions.
Taking note of the Social Investigation Report, the court observed that there was no indication of any criminal background in the juvenile’s family or any likelihood of his association with known criminals.
The report also recorded that the juvenile was pursuing his education and had no reported habits of smoking, consuming alcohol or drugs, or gambling.
The court further noted that even the Juvenile Justice Board had recorded that there was no material available to suggest that the juvenile’s release would bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
The Sessions Court held that the gravity of the allegations, however serious they may be, cannot independently constitute sufficient justification for refusing bail to a juvenile unless the circumstances demonstrably fall within the exceptions provided under Section 12 of the Act.
It also observed that the mere pendency of an investigation or the non-receipt of an FSL report cannot, by itself, become a statutory ground for keeping a child in continued detention.
On the question of the ends of justice, the court underscored that the Juvenile Justice Act is founded upon the principles of care, protection, rehabilitation and reformation of children in conflict with law.
The court observed that prolonged confinement in a correctional home could adversely affect a child’s emotional, psychological and educational development, adding that detention should remain a measure of last resort.
At the same time, the court took note of concerns regarding the proximity between the victim’s locality and the residence of the juvenile’s maternal aunt at Sidhra.
To address this concern, the court directed the juvenile’s parents not to send him to his maternal aunt’s residence at Sidhra, Jammu, except in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Juvenile Justice Board’s order dated September 28, 2026, rejecting bail, was set aside.
The court directed the release of the juvenile on bail upon his father furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with one surety of an equal amount.
The bail was made subject to strict conditions, including proper parental supervision, counselling, continuation of education, cooperation with the ongoing investigation and a prohibition on influencing, threatening or approaching witnesses.
The court’s order reiterates the statutory principle that juvenile justice proceedings must balance the seriousness of allegations with the legislative mandate of care, protection and rehabilitation of children in conflict with law.(KNC)