“Seriousness of the crime not decisive”: Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to minor accused of sexually abusing a seven-year-old

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the gravity of the offence should not be considered while considering a bail application of a child in conflict with the law. The court made this observation while granting bail to a youth aged around 14, accused of sexually abusing a seven-year-old girl.

Justice Sanjeev S. Kalagaonkar, who heard the case, stressed the importance of rehabilitation and welfare of the child and said, “All decisions concerning the child must be based on the consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and will help the child to develop his full potential. The main objective of the law is to deal with juvenile offenders with utmost care and caution. The gravity of the offence should not play a role in considering his application for grant of bail.”

The court was hearing a case in which the juvenile was charged under Sections 376(ab) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of rape of a woman below 12 years of age and criminal intimidation respectively, and under Sections 3/4, 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act relating to sexual assault and punishment and aggravated sexual assault and punishment. The Juvenile Court (JJB) and the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) had earlier denied bail to the juvenile, which gave rise to the present revision petition before the Supreme Court.

The court stressed that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ), 2015, requires the release of a child alleged to be in breach of the law on bail under the supervision of a probation officer or appropriate person, except in special circumstances. These exceptions, the court said, include cases where release could bring the child into contact with criminals, place him or her in danger or frustrate the ends of justice.

The Court also explained the key principles of Section 3 relating to care and protection, including the presumption of innocence until the age of 18, dignity and worth, the best interests of the child, family responsibility, non-stigma and the right to privacy throughout the legal process.

The court noted that the social investigation report submitted by the probation officer states that the delinquent child's father is a labourer and earns Rs 15,000 per month while the mother works as a cook and earns Rs 5,000 per month. Despite the modest income, the court observed that the father “is capable of taking care of his son's welfare and education. The delinquent child is studying in Class 9. The neighbours have stated that the delinquent child is of gentle behaviour. His behaviour and performance in the observation home have been found adequate, hence his rehabilitation with the family is recommended”.

The court also pointed out that the juvenile court and the appeals court had not properly examined the social investigation report, which did not state that the child's release would expose him to known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological dangers. It stressed that the economic situation of a family alone cannot justify depriving the child of the care and protection of his family. “Just because they belong to the weaker economic sections of society, no conclusion can be drawn about the incapacity of the family members. A child who has come into conflict with the law cannot be deprived of the care and protection of the family because of his economic situation,” the court observed.

Finally, the Court found that none of the criteria for refusing to rehabilitate the child with his family were met, making the disputed order by JJB and ASJ “illegal and unreasonable”.

As a result, the court set aside the order of the appellate court and directed that the accused juvenile, who was in an observation home in Indore since February 25, 2024, be released on bail and handed over to the custody of his father.