In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court denied bail to a juvenile offender, asserting that habitual engagement in criminal activities cannot be mitigated solely by the protections afforded to minors under the law.
This decision underscores the Court’s broader apprehensions regarding the potential exploitation of juvenile justice provisions in cases involving severe and recurrent offenses.
The Bench, consisting of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, scrutinized the juvenile’s legal history, emphasizing that he had been implicated in 4 analogous criminal cases.
“He is incorrigible! Just incorrigible,” the Court remarked, expressing unequivocal condemnation of the accused’s persistent criminal behavior.
“Let him understand the repercussions of his actions. In the name of being a juvenile, he cannot keep looting people. In fact, he should not have been treated as a juvenile. These are serious offenses, and every time they are getting away in the name of juveniles,” the Court stated, highlighting systemic vulnerabilities that enable repeated delinquencies under the existing juvenile justice framework.
The case in question pertains to charges of extortion and criminal intimidation, for which the Rajasthan High Court had previously denied bail to the accused. Notably, the juvenile was already on bail in three separate cases, raising judicial concerns about the effectiveness of rehabilitative interventions in such circumstances.
“We realize he has been in custody for one year and eight months. Ultimately, if the juvenile court holds him guilty, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three years. However, we are not persuaded to exercise our discretion in his favor,” the Supreme Court stated, reinforcing its stance that the severity and frequency of the offenses warranted a stringent judicial approach.
Furthermore, the Court took note of procedural inefficiencies, pointing out that despite the formal framing of charges, the prosecution had encountered difficulties in securing witness testimonies.
“If witnesses are not turning up, then this has something to do with the right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial. It is for the presiding officer of the juvenile court to take care of this and see that the prosecution produces the witnesses,” the Court emphasized, reaffirming the necessity of judicial oversight in ensuring procedural expediency.
To prevent undue delays, the Supreme Court mandated an expedited trial process.
“We grant four months to the trial court to complete the trial and, if needed, conduct it on a day-to-day basis,” the Court directed, underscoring the urgency of delivering justice in a timely manner.
This ruling represents a pivotal judicial interpretation of juvenile justice principles, advocating for a nuanced equilibrium between rehabilitative ideals and the imperative of accountability, particularly in instances of repeated criminal conduct.
Read More: Hate Speech Case: BJP Leader P C George Surrenders Before Kerala Court
