The vacation bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition filed by the minor, represented by his mother, challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s order dated April 1. The case, registered in Haridwar district, involves charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
NEW DELHI: Today (May 22), the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to deny bail to a minor boy accused in a case related to the suicide of a 14-year-old girl. The boy allegedly made and circulated an explicit video of the girl, leading to her tragic demise last year.
READ ALSO: “Minor Can Face Charges Under POCSO Act”: Kerala High Court
The vacation bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition filed by the minor, represented by his mother, challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s order dated April 1. The case, registered in Haridwar district, involves charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
The apex court, in its order passed on May 20, stated,
“Having heard senior counsel for the petitioner at length and after carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court at this stage. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”
The minor had approached the High court contesting various orders, including those issued by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which rejected his bail application.
The Uttarakhand High Court, in its order, highlighted the tragic circumstances surrounding the girl’s death. It noted that the girl went missing from her home on October 22 last year, and later, her body was found. The court observed that the juvenile was accused of creating and circulating an explicit video of the deceased, who was his classmate. The distress caused by this act allegedly led to the girl’s suicide.
“The petitioner, being a Child in Conflict with Law (CIL), is eligible for bail regardless of the offense’s classification as bailable or non-bailable,” stated the high court. However, it emphasized that bail could be denied under specific circumstances outlined in subsection 1 of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This includes instances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that releasing the CIL could lead to association with known criminals or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological harm, or if their release would obstruct the administration of justice.”
The High Court underscored the legal provisions applicable to minors in conflict with the law, emphasizing that bail may be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that releasing the juvenile could expose them to further danger or hamper the course of justice.
READ ALSO: Bombay High Court: Touching Not Equal to Penetrative Assault under POCSO Act
“After reviewing the social investigation report, the medical examination report, and the school’s findings, the court concludes that denying bail is in the child’s best interest. Granting bail would undermine the pursuit of justice,” stated the high court.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the denial of bail emphasized the importance of prioritizing the welfare and protection of minors involved in legal proceedings, particularly in cases as sensitive as this one.
