‘Jail not the rule’: HC grants bail to juvenile accused in murder case

The counsel for appellant (juvenile), Advocate Saurav Bhatia, contended that at the time of passing of the impugned order, the Additional Sessions Court had not even considered Section 12 of the Act and the general principle that bail is a rule and not jail. He said that it is not even observed in the impugned order that the case of the appellant is covered under the three exceptions as mentioned in Section 12 of the Act.

The Bench of Justice Bahl after hearing the arguments held that, a perusal of the Section 12 of the Act would show that bail is the rule and not jail in cases of juveniles and the same can be refused only in case the court comes to the conclusion on the basis of material that the case is covered under three exceptions as mentioned in Section 12 of the Act.

“Perusal of the impugned order would show that the said provisions of Section 12 of the Act had not even been considered and it was not even remotely observed therein that the case of the appellant is covered by any one of the exceptions. The appellant was 16 years and 2 months of age on the date of the alleged incident”, held Justice Bahl.

The Bench thus held that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, was set aside and the appellant (juvenile) is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court /duty magistrate.