20 May 2025 Juvenile Justice >> Miscellaneous  

In a significant ruling on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed two criminal appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to declare an accused as a juvenile and grant him bail in the case of Rajni v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Another. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Honourable Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, addressed critical issues surrounding age determination and bail provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act, 2015").

The case originated from Crime Case No. 80 of 2021, registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Crime Case No. 97/2021 under Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at the Medical College Police Station, Meerut, where "respondent No. 2" was accused.  

The Core Issues: Juvenility and Bail

The Supreme Court focused on two primary issues: the determination of respondent No. 2's juvenility and the appropriateness of granting him bail.

Determination of Juvenility:

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Meerut, initially dismissed applications to declare respondent No. 2 a juvenile, concluding he was over 18 years old on the incident date of February 17, 2021. This decision was based on a medical report that assessed his age at approximately 21 years , and the JJB's rejection of school and municipal birth certificates.

However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge overturned the JJB's order, declaring respondent No. 2 a juvenile delinquent. This was based on a high school certificate showing his date of birth as September 8, 2003, which would make him under 18 at the time of the incident. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the school certificate was determinative and should not have been disregarded by the JJB.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court and the Additional District and Sessions Judge, stating that the JJB's reasoning was "totally fallacious." The Court highlighted Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, which prioritizes school or matriculation certificates, followed by birth certificates from municipal authorities, before resorting to medical ossification tests. Since valid certificates were available, the JJB should not have ordered a medical examination or questioned the authenticity of the documents.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the JJB had previously accepted respondent No. 2's date of birth as September 8, 2003, in an earlier proceeding (Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000). The Court asserted that the JJB could not review its own earlier order, as no such power is conferred by the JJ Act, 2015.

Grant of Bail:

Regarding bail, the JJB and the Additional District and Sessions Judge had denied bail to respondent No. 2. However, the High Court granted him bail, stating that the gravity of the offense alone could not be a ground to reject bail for a juvenile in conflict with the law. The High Court found no satisfactory material to suggest that his release would expose him to danger or associate him with known criminals.

The Supreme Court observed that respondent No. 2 had been on bail for over three years, and no evidence was presented to show any misuse of this liberty. Consequently, the Court found no just or proper reason to interfere with the bail order at this stage, while also noting that the appellant or the State could seek cancellation of bail if the liberty is misused in the future.

Preliminary Assessment for Heinous Offenses:

The judgment also touched upon Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, which mandates a preliminary assessment by the JJB for heinous offenses allegedly committed by a child aged 16 years or above. In this case, the JJB had conducted such an assessment, finding respondent No. 2 "physically and mentally fit and mature enough to commit the alleged offence" and competent to understand the consequences. Accordingly, the JJB had ordered his transfer to the Juvenile Court/POCSO Court under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act, 2015. The Supreme Court noted that this order had not been challenged by respondent No. 2.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the High Court. Both criminal appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs. This ruling reinforces the statutory hierarchy for age determination under the JJ Act, 2015, and highlights the distinct considerations for bail in cases involving juveniles.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012  

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986  

Indian Penal Code, 1860