Karnataka HC: Bail Application of Juvenile Tried as Adult to Be Considered Under Section 12 of JJ Act

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that when a minor in conflict with the law is ordered to be tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, their bail application must still be assessed under Section 12 of the Act, not under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty made this ruling while granting bail to a minor accused of sexually assaulting and impregnating his younger sister, and who is set to be tried as an adult in a Special Court.

The court explained that Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that, regardless of the CrPC or any other law, a child presented before the Board should be granted bail unless there is a risk of associating with criminals, exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or a threat to justice. This provision, the court held, applies even when a child is ordered to be tried as an adult, and their bail request should not be assessed under the CrPC.

The accused, charged with multiple offenses under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, initially sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC in a Special Court, which was denied. He then approached the High Court.

The amicus curiae argued that despite the decision to try him as an adult, the petitioner’s bail should be considered under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing the requirement to release the child on bail. The victim and her parents also testified before the Special Court, stating they had no objections to the accused’s release on bail, and they did not cooperate with DNA testing.

The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing the severity of the offense and the risk of witness tampering if the accused was released. However, Justice Shetty noted that the proviso to Section 12(1) lists specific circumstances under which bail can be denied, none of which were applicable in this case.

The court observed that the crime does not pose a risk of associating with criminals or causing moral or psychological harm to the accused, and the victim’s family expressed no concern for their safety. Additionally, DNA testing was impeded by a lack of cooperation from both the victim and the adoptive parents of the child born to the victim.

Noting that the accused has been detained since July 24, 2023, and that trial has yet to start, the court found there is little likelihood of the trial concluding soon, with 22 witnesses listed. The court concluded that the Special Court should have considered the application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and failing to do so infringed upon the accused's right to liberty.

As a result, the court granted bail, ordering the accused to post a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and abide by additional conditions.