Posted On by &filed under Criminal Law News.

A Delhi court has rejected the bail plea of a juvenile, accused in an attempt to murder case, saying his parents have no control over the boy who indulged in a similar crime when he was out on bail in another offence.Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma upheld the order of a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and dismissed the appeal of the juvenile while observing that there was a possibility of his getting exposed to hardened criminals and repeating similar offences.

“It is an apparent fact on record that after having been released on bail in another FIR, appellant had again indulged in commission of an offence of similar nature, which fact also goes to show that his parents have no control over him,” the judge said.

Observing that bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right in such cases, the court said, “It is the cardinal principle of law as well as provided in the Juvenile Justice Act itself that where there is a possibility of exposure of juvenile with hardened criminals and repetition of similar offences, the JJB would be fully justified in refusing to grant bail to him…Bail can’t be claimed as a matter of right in such cases,” it said.

The judge, while dismissing the juvenile’s appeal, also said that there was “no infirmity or illegality in impugned order warranting any interference of this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal, as filed, is dismissed”.

The juvenile, facing trial for offences under section 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the IPC, had moved the sessions court against a JJB order denying him bail on January 31 in an attempt to murder case saying he was likely to commit similar offences and be exposed to hardened criminals, if released on bail.

The appeal, filed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000, (JJ Act) against the order of JJB, said that the order was “illegal and perverse” as the board had granted bail to another juvenile accused in the same case, “failing to consider the aspect of parity”.

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of