Court says punishing children ‘self destructive’ gives juvenile bail in rape case

“The Juvenile Justice Act is based on the belief that children are the future of society and in case they go into conflict with the law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. A punitive approach towards children in conflict with the law would be self-destructive for society,” the July 7 order read. 

The high court also pointed out that it is only when keeping a child in custody aids his development, rehabilitation or protection that it can be said that his release would “defeat” the ends of justice.

Adding that the “institutionalisation” of a juvenile in conflict with the law is contemplated only as a “last resort”, the high court granted bail, noting that the juvenile had no criminal antecedents, had studied up to eighth class and had never been involved in anti-social activities in the past.

The prosecution claimed that the juvenile was found in the victim’s room by her mother and later refused to marry her. However, the juvenile stated that he was acquainted with the girl and that her parents wanted to get their daughter married to him. According to him, the case was lodged to pressure him into marriage.

‘Reform child into productive member of society’

The high court clarified that the “seriousness” of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile is also not a relevant consideration for denial of bail under the Juvenile Justice Act. 

“Even the child who is 16 years or above 16 years of age and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 (mandatory presumption of bail),” the court added.  

Justice Jitendra Kumar stated that the “institutionalisation” of a juvenile in conflict with the law is contemplated only as a “last resort”.

Pointing out that the purpose and object of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform and rehabilitate the juveniles and not to punish them, the high court mentioned that the family of the child in conflict with the law has been considered by the legislature as the “best and first desirable institution” to achieve the object of the Act. 

“Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or foster parents of the child, and it has been contemplated that every child in conflict with the law has the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest,” the court stated. 

The high court further observed that juvenile justice boards and courts are required to adopt a “fundamentally different approach” while dealing with children in conflict with the law. It added that such children should be dealt with “sensitively and responsibly”, to reform and rehabilitate them into responsible and productive members of society.

The high court also directed the district magistrate to find a way to help the juvenile and his family members under the welfare schemes of the government to rehabilitate and reintegrate with the “mainstream” of society. 

Arguments 

Appearing for the juvenile, advocate Pramod Kumar Yadav argued that as per the medico-legal examination, which was placed on record, the alleged survivor has refused to undergo any medical examination. He further added that even the survivor’s mother did not want to get her daughter medically examined concerning the alleged offence. 

He further submits that regular bail that only on account of the prosecution case being supported by the alleged survivor in her statement, the regular bail application cannot be rejected. He added that his client has been detained in the observation home since August 2025 and has sought bail.

On the contrary, special public prosecutor Usha Kumari defends the previous order denying bail to the juvenile, saying that there was no illegality or infirmity in the said order.