The Gujarat High Court has ordered the release of a juvenile accused in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, granting him regular bail. The court imposed specific conditions, directing the boy's father to provide a surety and ensure his son does not fall into "bad company."
Case Background and Legal Journey
The juvenile, whose identity is protected by law, was booked in an alleged rape case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act in Surendranagar district last year. Following his arrest, he remained in an observation home for over six months after his bail pleas were successively rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and a sessions court acting as the first appellate authority.
Challenging these rejections, the juvenile, represented by his father as a guardian under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, moved the Gujarat High Court seeking regular bail. The hearing took place recently, culminating in an oral order for his release.
Key Arguments and Settlement
Advocates Devangi S Solanki and Jaydeep Solanki, representing the applicant, presented several arguments before the court. They submitted that the case stemmed from a consensual love affair where both the accused and the victim were minors. Crucially, they pointed out that the investigation was complete and a chargesheet had been filed, removing any risk of evidence tampering.
A significant turn in the case was an affidavit filed by advocate BR Dholariya on behalf of the complainant—the victim's father. The affidavit stated that the parties had arrived at an out-of-court settlement and the original complainant had no objection to the juvenile being released on bail.
The defence also argued that under Section 12 of the JJ Act, it was mandatory to grant bail to a juvenile, contending that the lower courts had failed to interpret this provision correctly.
Court's Bail Order and Strict Conditions
Considering the submissions, the Gujarat High Court ordered the juvenile's release on regular bail. The bail was granted on a surety and bail bond of Rs 5,000 to be furnished by his father. However, the court attached stringent monitoring conditions to the bail.
The court directed that a probation officer shall monitor the conduct of the juvenile and submit a quarterly report to the appellate court until the trial concludes. Furthermore, it ordered that if the probation officer deems it necessary, the juvenile must be sent for behavior modification therapy and psychiatric support.
In a direct instruction, the bench mandated that the father of the juvenile must ensure the boy will not fall into bad company. The court's order also noted the prosecution's submission that the lower courts had considered the facts, the applicant's role, and the gravity of the offence while rejecting bail earlier.
The case highlights the judiciary's balancing act between the protective ethos of the Juvenile Justice Act and the serious nature of charges under laws like POCSO, especially when familial settlements and completed investigations are involved.
