The Patna High Court, in a landmark judgment, reinforced that family-based rehabilitation must take precedence over institutionalization for juveniles in conflict with law. The court emphasized the reformatory purpose of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, overturning bail denial for a minor accused in a murder case.
Case Background: Allegations and Lower Court Decisions
The case (Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs The State of Bihar) stemmed from a 2022 incident where Rahul Kumar, the informant’s son, was fatally shot. The petitioner, a 14-year-old juvenile, was accused of conspiring with others to commit the crime. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and later the Special Children Court rejected his bail plea, citing risks of re-offending and exposure to criminal influences.
The prosecution alleged that the juvenile, along with co-accused Amit Kumar Pandey @ Golu, lured the victim under the pretext of a phone call. The victim was found unconscious with gunshot wounds and later died at a hospital. A Social Investigation Report (SIR) by the Probation Officer noted the juvenile’s lack of criminal history but highlighted concerns about his friends’ questionable backgrounds.
High Court’s Analysis: Legal Principles and Flawed Reasoning
Justice Jitendra Kumar scrutinized Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates bail for juveniles unless specific risks exist. The court observed:
“Bail to a juvenile is a rule, refusal an exception. Denial is permissible only if release risks association with criminals, exposes the child to danger, or defeats justice.”
The High Court found the lower courts’ reasoning flawed. The JJB and Special Children Court had argued that the juvenile’s release might lead to contact with criminals and hinder justice. However, the SIR revealed:
- The juvenile’s family had no criminal history.
- His father was educated, his sister pursued intermediate studies, and familial relationships were stable.
- No evidence suggested the juvenile would flee or re-offend.
Justice Kumar :
“Institutionalization is the last resort. The legislature envisions family as the primary institution for a child’s reintegration. Who better than parents to ensure a child’s welfare?”
Court’s Emphasis on Reform, Not Punishment - The judgment highlighted the “best interest of the child” principle under the Juvenile Justice Act. It criticized the lower courts for ignoring the SIR’s findings and relying on conjectures. Key takeaways included:
1. Misinterpretation of “Ends of Justice”: Justice Kumar clarified that “justice” under the Act prioritizes rehabilitation, not punitive detention.
2. No Proof of Criminal Links: The SIR did not substantiate claims that the juvenile’s friends were criminals.
3. Family’s Role in Rehabilitation: The court stressed that reuniting the child with his educated, supportive family would aid reform.
The High Court directed the juvenile’s release on a bail bond of ₹10,000, requiring his father to submit an affidavit ensuring:
- The juvenile avoids criminal associations.
- He continues education and attends court/JJB hearings.
