Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, a minor, charged under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court observed that considering the circumstances and the nature of the allegations, the appellant’s continued detention was not warranted.
Facts:
- The appellant, a minor around 16 years of age, was accused of enticing another minor girl with whom he was allegedly in a love affair and subsequently engaging in a physical relationship.
- An FIR was registered against him under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), and 376 (rape) of the IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.
- The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail plea, and the Special Judge (POCSO Act) and the High Court of Allahabad subsequently dismissed his appeal against the rejection.
Issues:
- Whether a juvenile involved in a consensual relationship with another minor should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations.
- Whether the provisions of the POCSO Act could be invoked in such a case.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant and the alleged victim were in a consensual romantic relationship, and there was no element of force or exploitation.
- It was submitted that the appellant had no prior criminal record and had been in detention for over a year.
- The petitioner argued that continued detention would be detrimental to the minor’s rehabilitation and upbringing.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State contended that the charges were serious and the minor should not be released on bail, as there was a possibility that he could influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.
- The State further argued that the nature of the allegations required careful consideration before granting bail, especially under the POCSO Act.
Analysis of the Law:
- The Court considered the scope of bail provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the POCSO Act.
- The principle of best interest and rehabilitation of the juvenile was taken into account, along with the fact that no aggravating circumstances were present in the case.
Precedent Analysis:
- The Court referred to previous judgments, where minors involved in consensual relationships were granted bail, to emphasize the principle of rehabilitation over retribution.
- It also reiterated the established position that minors should not be detained for prolonged periods in the absence of any serious threat to society.
Court’s Reasoning:
- The Supreme Court reasoned that the charges were primarily based on a consensual romantic relationship between the minors.
- The Court noted that although both parties were minors, the case did not involve any coercion or malicious intent.
- Considering the best interests of the juvenile, the Court held that keeping the appellant in detention would not serve the objectives of juvenile justice.
Conclusion:
- The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court directed the release of the appellant on bail, subject to conditions to ensure his presence during the trial.
- It was emphasized that the liberty granted should not be misused and any breach would result in cancellation of bail.
Implications:
- The ruling reaffirms that cases involving juvenile offenders, especially in consensual relationships, should be dealt with a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive one.
- The judgment may influence future cases where minors are accused under similar circumstances, promoting a more compassionate application of the POCSO Act and juvenile justice principles.
