Ishani Mishra, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
Anticipatory bail for juveniles has remained a contentious issue in India, with several High Courts adopting conflicting interpretations of the exclusionary clause under S. 12 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015, which bars the application of the provisions of the CrPC to juveniles. This article attempts to critique the judicial stance adopted by High Courts that have held that a petition for anticipatory bail by a juvenile is not maintainable under S. 438 of the CrPC. Firstly, the author analyses the difference between ‘apprehension’ and ‘arrest’ as used in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and observes that there is only a superficial difference between the two, with reference to juveniles. Secondly, the author argues that since the exclusionary clause under S. 12 of the JJ Act applies only to the post-arrest period, its applicability would not extend to pre-arrest or anticipatory bail, thus leaving scope for applying S. 438 of the CrPC, for the benefit of the juvenile. Thirdly, the author notes that a purposive interpretation of S. 12 would serve to fulfil the legislative intent and wider policy objective underlying the JJ Act, which is reformation of the juvenile accused. The author then proposes specific amendments to the JJ Act, to resolve the dilemma and suggests reforms for furthering the objective of juvenile reformation.
Comments