The Calcutta High Court has ruled that juveniles accused of crimes can now apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, ensuring pre-arrest protection and equal personal liberty rights like adults for minors in conflict with the law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: In a historic decision, a three-judge division bench of the Calcutta High Court has ruled that juveniles accused of any crime are now eligible for anticipatory bail. This landmark decision was delivered by a three-judge division bench comprising Justice Jay Sengupta, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, and Justice Bivas Pattanayak on Friday.
Until this ruling, anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was available exclusively to adults, while the Juvenile Justice Board alone decided the release of minors after arrest. The Calcutta High Court’s order now allows juveniles to approach the High Court or Court of Session for pre-arrest protection, bridging a legal gap that had long sparked debate among legal experts.
Split Verdict
The verdict was passed by a 2:1 majority, with Justices Sengupta and Ghosh concurring. The majority ruled that nothing in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, explicitly bars juveniles from seeking anticipatory bail. The bench emphasized:
- Personal liberty is a fundamental right that applies to all, including minors.
- The Juvenile Justice Act primarily governs post-arrest procedures, while anticipatory bail functions before apprehension, ensuring protection of liberty.
- Denying anticipatory bail to minors would remove a key legal safeguard available to adults, contradicting the welfare-oriented spirit of the juvenile law.
The court also clarified that anticipatory bail orders can include child-sensitive conditions, ensuring that such orders do not conflict with the statutory role of the Juvenile Justice Board after the minor is apprehended.
ALSO READ: Juvenile Conviction No Ground for Job Disqualification Under JJ Act: Allahabad High Court
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Bivas Pattanayak dissented, warning that granting anticipatory bail to minors might weaken the protective framework established under the Juvenile Justice Act. According to the dissent, pre-arrest protection could bypass the welfare-driven inquiry conducted by the Board, which is specifically designed to safeguard children in conflict with the law.
Case Background
The issue arose from a plea filed by four minors apprehending arrest in connection with offences registered at Raghunathganj Police Station. A single-judge bench referred the matter to the larger three-judge bench after conflicting judicial opinions emerged regarding whether the Juvenile Justice Act implicitly overrides anticipatory bail provisions.
Legal experts have praised this decision as pathbreaking, noting that it:
- Clarifies that the Juvenile Justice Act does not bar pre-arrest protection.
- Affirms that juveniles enjoy the same constitutional guarantee of personal liberty as adults.
- Establishes a precedent for child-sensitive anticipatory bail orders across India.
The ruling positions the Calcutta High Court as the first high court in India to explicitly grant anticipatory bail rights to juveniles, potentially influencing similar petitions in other states.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Juvenile