Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court

Even in the Most Heinous Cases, a Child’s Right to Bail Under the Juvenile Justice Act Cannot Be Denied Without Justifiable Grounds - In a significant ruling Delhi High Court dismissed a plea challenging the bail granted to a 17-year-old accused of murder, upholding the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision that the accused lacked the mental and physical maturity to be tried as an adult. The petitioner, Mohd. Munib, had sought a reversal of the bail order, arguing that the accused’s actions—retrieving a firearm, shooting the victim, and disposing of the body—showed a well-planned and mature criminal intent. However, the Court ruled that mere severity of the crime does not justify denying bail to a minor unless statutory exceptions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act) are met.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court held: “The statutory scheme of the JJ Act prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution. The grant of bail to a juvenile is the norm, and the prosecution must demonstrate compelling reasons to justify its denial.”

"Murder, Cover-Up, and a Legal Battle—Was the Juvenile Fit to Be Tried as an Adult?"
The case stemmed from the murder of Mohd. Haseeb on September 3, 2022, allegedly at the behest of his uncle, Naushad. According to the prosecution, the accused, Naushad’s 17-year-old son (CCL-SAH), retrieved a firearm on his father’s orders and shot Haseeb. The accused and his accomplices disposed of the body in Gang Nahar, Ghaziabad, and erased CCTV footage to destroy evidence.

The police registered FIR No. 247/2022 under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC, and arrested Naushad and another accomplice. Since CCL-SAH was a minor, he was produced before the JJB instead of being tried in a regular court. The JJB granted him bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, ruling that the accused lacked the mental and physical capacity to be tried as an adult.

Challenging this decision, the deceased’s cousin, Mohd. Munib, argued that the accused’s active role in retrieving the weapon, executing the murder, and erasing evidence showed a clear maturity to understand his actions and their consequences. The petitioner further contended that the JJB mechanically relied on the Preliminary Assessment Report without conducting a thorough evaluation.

The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Tis Hazari, upheld the JJB’s decision on September 16, 2023, prompting the present revision petition before the Delhi High Court.

"Does a Juvenile’s Criminal Act Automatically Mean He Should Be Tried as an Adult?"
The petitioner argued that the JJB’s decision to treat the accused as a juvenile was flawed and that the heinous nature of the crime warranted a trial as an adult under Section 15 of the JJ Act. It was contended that the accused had planned the murder, acted upon orders, and destroyed evidence, demonstrating a high level of maturity and criminal intent.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court emphasized that the JJ Act does not mandate an automatic transfer of juveniles aged 16-18 to adult courts for heinous offenses. Instead, a Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 is required to evaluate the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit the offense. The Court held:

“The law recognizes that children, even when they commit grave crimes, may not possess the same level of maturity as adults. The assessment must consider cognitive development, impulse control, and susceptibility to external influence.”

The Court noted that the Social Investigation Report and Psychological Evaluation Report indicated that the accused exhibited poor impulse control and was heavily influenced by his father’s instructions. It further observed that “while the accused played a direct role in the crime, the assessment reports indicate that he lacked independent decision-making capacity, making him fit to be tried as a juvenile.”

"Multiple Birth Dates Raise Doubts—Was the Accused Truly a Juvenile?"
Another key contention raised by the petitioner was that the accused’s age determination was flawed, as three different birth dates (June 27, 2005, June 17, 2005, and July 8, 2005) appeared in different documents. The petitioner argued that the JJB failed to conduct an independent age verification and relied solely on school records.

The High Court, however, ruled that age determination in juvenile cases follows a strict hierarchy, with school records being the primary basis unless proven to be fraudulent. The Court observed: “The JJB correctly relied on the school record, which listed July 8, 2005, as the date of birth. Mere discrepancies in other documents do not invalidate a school certificate unless it is proven to be fabricated.”

Referring to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, the Court reiterated that “when school records are available, alternative birth records carry no evidentiary value unless shown to be forged.”

"Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely Based on the Seriousness of the Crime"
Challenging the grant of bail, the petitioner argued that the severity of the offense should override the statutory presumption in favor of bail for juveniles. However, the High Court ruled that: “Section 12 of the JJ Act makes bail the rule and its denial an exception. The prosecution must establish that the accused’s release would associate him with known criminals, expose him to physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The mere heinousness of the offense is not a valid ground for rejecting bail.”

The Court referred to Rakesh Rai v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 374, where it was held that: “The seriousness of the alleged offense or the age of the juvenile cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. The prosecution must prove that one of the exceptions under Section 12 exists.”

The Court found that the prosecution failed to present any evidence that the accused’s release would lead to witness tampering, exposure to criminal influence, or obstruction of justice. It noted that “bail cannot be denied on vague apprehensions without specific supporting material.”

"Does the Complainant Have a Right to Be Heard in Bail Proceedings?"
The petitioner also argued that he was denied an opportunity to be heard before the JJB, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court rejected this argument, ruling that: “Juvenile justice proceedings are child-centric and not adversarial in nature. The complainant does not have an absolute right to be heard in bail hearings under the JJ Act.”

The Court cited X v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4209, where it was held that: “The complainant’s right to be heard in bail proceedings under the JJ Act is not supported by statutory mandate. Bail decisions prioritize rehabilitation over retribution, and there is no legislative requirement to notify the complainant before granting bail.”

Conclusion: No Error in Granting Bail, Petition Dismissed
Dismissing the revision petition, the Delhi High Court upheld the JJB’s order granting bail and ruled that the accused was rightly classified as a juvenile. The Court found that:

•    The JJB followed due process in determining the accused’s age.
•    The Preliminary Assessment correctly found that the accused lacked the mental and physical maturity to be tried as an adult.
•    The prosecution failed to establish grounds for denying bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act.
Concluding the judgment, the Court held: “The juvenile justice system is founded on the principle that children, even in the gravest cases, should be rehabilitated rather than punished as adults. The statutory protections of the JJ Act cannot be ignored based on public outrage alone.”
 

Date of Decision: 11 March 2025