Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal challenging the refusal to suspend appellant’s sentence based on Probation Officer’s report, a single-judge bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla, J., granted bail to the appellant (a Juvenile tried as adult), subject to conditions of supervision by the Probation Officer. The Court directed the Probation Officer to regularly monitor his conduct and submit periodic reports.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for 7 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and fined Rs. 3000/-, with a default sentence of 3 months RI. Additionally, under Section 201 IPC, the appellant received 3 years RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and 2 months RI in default.
The appellant’s application for suspension of sentence was denied on 10-04-2024. The court relied on a Probation Officer’s report that depicted the appellant’s family circumstances and stated that his father was a chowkidar with a drinking habit, his mother was a housewife, and his family faced financial struggles. Aggrieved by the impugned denial to suspend his sentence, the appellant filed the present appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), challenging the conviction and seeking suspension of the sentence.
The appellant contended that the previous denial was based on an incorrect Probation Officer report, which stated that he was unemployed. The appellant produced a certificate from his employer, confirming his employment from 31-12-2021 to 19-12-2023. The appellant argued that seriousness of the offense alone should not determine bail or suspension of sentence. The appellant cited precedents where bail was granted in similar circumstances despite serious offenses.
Moot Point
-
When the child becomes an adult during the pendency of trial/appeal what should be the consideration for grant of bail/ suspension of sentence.?
-
Whether the application will be considered on merits means gravity and manner of commission of offences irrespective of the report of Probation Officer or report of the probation officer will be relevant consideration?
-
Whether the provisions of the Act or the provisions of the CrPC shall apply for the consideration of bail / Suspension of Sentence to the CICL?
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The Court noted that Section 12 of JJ Act, mandates that bail should be granted to the child in conflict with the law (CICL) unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release would bring the juvenile into association with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
The Court referred to Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 SCC Cri 742, where it was emphasised that the Juvenile Justice Act is beneficial legislation and should be interpreted to provide care, protection, and rehabilitation of juveniles; X v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 1479, where it was held that even if a child is transferred for trial as an adult, bail must be considered under Section 12 of the JJ Act and Mahesh Rao v. State of M.P., (Criminal Revision No. 755/2023), where it was held that seriousness of the crime alone is not a ground to deny bail to CICL.
The Court stated that “the only exception to grant of the bail to a CICL is the reasonable ground for believing that release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.”
The Court stated that if a person was a juvenile at the time of committing the offense, they remain covered by the provisions of the JJ Act, including its more lenient bail provisions, even if they turn 18 during the trial. However, in cases of heinous crimes (such as those involving serious offenses punishable by imprisonment of seven years or more), the Juvenile Justice Board has the authority to transfer the case to a regular criminal court. If the case is transferred, then the bail provisions under CrPC will apply, subjecting the accused to the same bail conditions as an adult. The Court stated that “if the case is transferred to an adult Criminal Court and the person is convicted as an adult, he might be sent to regular jail upon conviction but only after turning 21 years until then, he will be stayed at a place of safety.”
The Court noted that Section 20(1) of the JJ Act states that a juvenile who turns 21 can be released if rehabilitation and expert evaluation suggest that he is fit to re-enter society. The Court opined that since the appellant has turned 21, the case must be evaluated under Section 20 of the JJ Act. The Court noted that the applicant’s conduct during his stay at the Place of Safety was found to be non-adverse according to the Probation Officer’s report. Despite concerns about his family’s ability to control him, no evidence indicated that he knew about the crime when it was committed (i.e., that the dead body was in the car). The Court further noted that the applicant could not be denied bail simply because there was no male family member to supervise him.
The Court held that the provisions of the JJ Act prioritise rehabilitation and the best interest of the child, which must be considered even after the child becomes an adult during the trial. The Court asserted that Bail cannot be denied solely based on the seriousness of the offense without considering reformation, rehabilitation, and the Probation Officer’s report. Based on the principles of the JJ Act and the evidential inaccuracies in the Probation Officer’s report, the Court acknowledged that there is the need for reconsideration of the bail application.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the application for suspension of sentence/bail should be reconsidered, as the earlier rejection was based on an inaccurate report, however, the final order on suspension of sentence or bail will be subject to further examination of all circumstances, including rehabilitation prospects and the Probation Officer’s updated report.
The Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence and granted bail with conditions. The Court directed the appellant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-, report to the Probation Officer every two months, and remain under supervision for the remainder of his sentence. The Court directed the Probation Officer to submit periodic reports on the applicant’s behavior and held that the adverse reports could lead to the cancellation of the suspension of appellant’s sentence.
[Juvenile X v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6258, Decided on 21-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Aditya Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, Counsel for the Respondent/State
