Factual Background

The bail application was filed on behalf of a person convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), who had been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault. During the pendency of his criminal appeal before the High Court, the convict raised a claim of juvenility, contending that he was a “child in conflict with law” at the time of commission of the offence.

Pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court, the issue of age determination was referred to the Trial Court and the inquiry was pending. In the interim, an application for bail was filed invoking Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides that bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule, irrespective of the nature of the offence, subject to limited exceptions. The Trial Court had rejected the bail application and directed that the convict be kept in a place of safety pending determination of age. This rejection was challenged before the High Court.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court examined the scope of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and reiterated that while the provision makes bail the norm for a child in conflict with law, the statute itself carves out exceptions where bail may be denied if release would defeat the “ends of justice” or expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or lead to association with known criminals.

The Court emphasised that a mere plea of juvenility does not automatically confer a right to bail, particularly when the claim of juvenility itself is under inquiry and yet to be finally determined. The Court took note of the seriousness and gravity of the offence, being one of aggravated sexual assault under POCSO, and the conduct attributed to the accused while previously on bail, including allegations of commission of a similar offence against the same survivor.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents interpreting Section 12 of the JJ Act, the Court observed that the expression “defeat the ends of justice” is not confined to procedural considerations alone but permits the Court to assess the nature and gravity of the offence, past conduct of the accused, and the overall impact of release on the administration of justice. In cases involving heinous sexual offences, particularly where there is a prima facie indication of repeated offending, the Court held that denial of bail may be justified even during the pendency of age determination proceedings.

Order of the Court

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the gravity of the offence and the prima facie conduct of the convict while earlier on bail, the High Court held that release at this stage would defeat the ends of justice. The bail application was accordingly rejected. The Court clarified that the determination of juvenility would continue in accordance with law before the Trial Court and that the present order would not prejudice the merits of the age inquiry or the pending criminal appeal.

Written by Adv. Aiswarya Krishnan