Bombay High Court, In Pooja Gagan Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra, Citing Misapplication of The Juvenile Justice Act Ordered The Release of the Juvenile From The Observation Home Where He Was Detained In Connection With A Fatal Car Crash.

On June 25, 2024, a two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, issued a writ of habeas corpus (judgment) in the case of Pooja Gagan Jain vs. State of Maharashtra. The case involved a petition challenging the detention of a 17-year-old male, identified as "Master X" and referred to as “CCL” (child in conflict with law), in an Observation Home following a car accident that resulted in the death of two people. The petitioner, the juvenile's paternal aunt, argued that the detention was unlawful as the juvenile had been granted bail.

Breif of the Incident:
A horrifying incident took place on 19.05.2024 that caused the death of two young individuals who were engineers namely, Ashwini Kostha and Aneesh Awadhiya.
The incident was caused due to the carelessness of a minor, named Master X (referred to as a Child in conflict with Law “CCL”) who was driving a Porsche car at a high speed under the influence of alcohol.
The alleged reckless behaviour by the CCL led to the registration of FIR bearing No. 306/2024 for offences under Section 304A, 279, 337, 338, 427 of the IPC, and Sections 184, 190, and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment Act 2019).

The Court while penning the judgment has expressed their dismay and concern at the way the respondents, including the investigation team, have handled the entire situation.
On May 19, 2024, granting his release on bail, On May 20, 2024, the Principal Magistrate and Member II of the Board endorsed the order, indicating their concurrence with Member I, the order was made under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, in adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 6 of the Act.
The current petition has been filed by Mrs. Pooja Jain, the paternal aunt of the CCL, requesting the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the immediate release of the CCL from describing the remand of the CCL in Observation Home as unlawful and arbitrary custody and incarceration.
Additionally, a Writ of Certiorari is sought to annul and invalidate the illegal remand orders dated May 22, 2024, and June 5, 2024, issued by the Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune.

The Court has formulated two issues to deal with the matter at hand being:
1.Whether the Writ Petition seeking a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus deserve consideration with the prayer clauses contained therein.

&

2.Whether the course adopted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune is permissible in the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

WHETHER THE COURSE ADOPTED BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PUNE IS PERMISSIBLE?

The Court observed that the scheme of the Act, 2015 under section 101 grants the right to apply for an appeal to the Children's Court within 30 days against an order made by the Committee or Board. Subsequently, a person dissatisfied with the order passed by the Children's Court may appeal to the High Court following the procedures as outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court outlined that the scheme of section 3 lays down the ground for the presumption of innocence of any malafide or criminal intent up to the age of 18 years.
While section 12 mandates that when a child accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence is apprehended or appears before the Board, bail must be granted. The child may be released with or without surety, or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or a suitable caregiver as deemed appropriate by the Board.
However, subsection (1) lays out that if a child accused of a bailable offence isn't granted bail by the police officer or by the Board for a non-bailable offence, they should be sent to an Observation Home or a place of safety.
On the backdrop of the legal framework the Court observed that one thing is, evidently clear, the detention in the Observation Home or place of safety is only in the circumstance when the child is not released on bail or when he is not placed under the supervision of the Probation Officer or the care of any fit person paraphrase The discretion to grant bail should be exercised by the competent authority after considering parameters, as established by the Supreme Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan.
Thus, the Court held that in issuing the order dated May 21, 2024, the Board appears to have misinterpreted its authority under Section 104 by directing the child to remain in the Observation Home. The subsequent orders extending custody in the Observation Home on two occasions are issued without jurisdiction. Without cancelling the bail, it is impermissible to detain the child in any form of custody, including an Observation Home.

MAINTAINABILITY OF A PETITION SEEKING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The court while pronouncing its verdict has relied on the position taken in Manibhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, wherein, it has been held that a writ of Habeas Corpus A plea shall not be entertained if a person is placed in judicial custody or police custody by a Competent Court through an order that prima facie does not seem to lack jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical or wholly illegal manner reference has also been made to a decision taken in SFIO Vs. Rahul Modi.
The bench has ascertained that the actions of the respondent squarely meet the parameters in Gautam Navlakha vs. NIA case for entertaining a writ of Habeas Corpus. Both conditions laid out are met in the present case and therefore, the remand of the CCL through three distinct orders issued by the Board is completely illegal as the impugned orders suffer from a lack of jurisdiction.

The court, referring to Section 39(2) of the Act, asserted that the placement of a juvenile in an Observation Home for rehabilitation is only permissible if the child is not released on bail. The court observed that the Board's reliance on Section 104 of the Act to amend its previous bail order was a misinterpretation of the provision. Section 104, according to the court, only allows for amendments regarding the institution or the person under whose care a child is placed, but it does not empower the Board to detain a child who has been granted bail.

Justice Dangre, authoring the judgment, stated: "The Juvenile Justice Board has, therefore, clearly erred in assuming the power to detain the CCL in Observation Home, contradicting its own earlier order releasing him on bail, by construing its subsequent order, as an amendment of the earlier order, which is a grossly erroneous assumption, as there is no question of confining a free child, who is already on bail".

The court emphasized the principle of 'Repatriation and Restoration' enshrined in Section 3(xiii) of the Act, stating that every child in the juvenile justice system has the right to be reunited with their family unless it's not in their best interest. The court also invoked the principle of 'institutionalization as a last resort' as per Section 3(xii) of the Act.

The court expressed concern about the public pressure surrounding the case and stressed the importance of upholding the rule of law. The court said, "The outcry, as a knee jerk reaction to the accident, resulting into a clarion call of 'see the accused's action and not his age', will have to be overlooked upon assimilating that the CCL is a child under the Juvenile Justice Act, being under 18 years and regardless of his crime, he must receive the same treatment, which every other child in conflict with law is entitled to receive...".

The High Court concluded that the continued detention of the juvenile in the Observation Home was illegal and ordered his immediate release. However, the court clarified that the juvenile would remain subject to the conditions of his bail and should continue his rehabilitation therapy as directed by the Board under the supervision of his paternal aunt. The court's decision reasserted the importance of following due process and adhering to the principles of juvenile justice, even in cases that generate significant public attention.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2372 OF 2024
BETWEEN: POOJA GAGAN JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J
DATED: 25th JUNE, 2024