Gravity of Offense Not Grounds for Denial of Bail to Juvenile - Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the severity of an offense is not a relevant consideration for denying bail to a juvenile. The decision was made by Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori while reviewing a criminal revision that challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO) Act. The appellate court had rejected the criminal appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur.

The case involved a complaint lodged by the victim's brother against the revisionist and other co-accused persons. The victim was harassed on her way to school, and one of the accused, Abhijeet Prajapati, wanted to have physical relations with her. When she objected, he abused her and threatened her with dire consequences. An FIR was registered under various sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and IT Act.

The issue before the bench was whether the revisionist could be convicted under the various sections mentioned in the FIR. The bench noted the significance of the word "shall" in subsection (1) of Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015. The use of the word "shall" suggests that the provision is mandatory, but it can be rebutted by other considerations such as the object and scope of the enactment. The bench referred to the case of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra and noted that terms used in a statute must be assigned meaning as commonly understood in the context of the statute.

The bench ruled that the gravity of the offense is not a relevant consideration for denying bail to a juvenile. A juvenile can only be denied bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, 2015, are available. The Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court had not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 and other provisions related to the juvenile in question. They had declined to grant bail based on unfounded apprehensions and without providing reasons for the denial. The findings of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court were based on the heinousness of the offense and were not sustainable. Therefore, the bench allowed the criminal revision.

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. And Another