PLD 2022 SC 551
Section 6 of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 deals with the release of a juvenile on bail falling under different categories of offences. Section 6(3) provides for treating the “minor offences” and “major offences” as bailable, while the provisions for release on bail of a juvenile accused of bailable offences are contained in subsection (1) thereof. These provisions though provide for placing a juvenile accused of a bailable offence under the custody of a suitable person or Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre under the supervision of probation officer if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of such juvenile may bring him in association with criminals or expose him to any other danger, but categorically prohibit his detention in a police station under police custody or in a jail. Therefore, a juvenile cannot be detained in a police station or a jail in bailable offences, which include minor offences and major offences as defined under the Act.
Section 6(4) of the Act provides that where a juvenile is more than sixteen years of age and is arrested or detained for a heinous offence, he may not be released on bail if the Juvenile Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such juvenile is involved in commission of a heinous offence. While Section 6(4) deals with the bail of juveniles under a heinous offence on merits, a separate provision provides for bail to the same juveniles where they have been detained for a continuous period exceeding six months and whose trial has not been completed. Under the Act, only in a case involving “heinous offence” can a juvenile be detained in a police station or a jail. Thus, it can safely be concluded that Section 6(5) of the Act does apply, rather solely applies, to a case involving a “heinous offence”, irrespective of the age of the juvenile. Section 6(5) in effect works as a proviso to Section 6(4) and appears to have no other purpose under the scheme of the Act. The approach of the trial court, in the present case, to decline benefit of Section 6(5) of the Act to the petitioner merely by observing that the offence is “heinous” is not legally correct; this subsection is meant for, and only applies to, a case involving “heinous offence”. To hold otherwise will render Section 6(5) redundant and unnecessary.
0 Comments