Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra has held that the court has no power to detain a minor and deprive him of liberty when bail is granted by the Juvenile Justice Board. 

What was the Background of the XYZ v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• In this case, the petitioner is a minor aged 17 years and 8 months. 
• On 19th May 2024 the minor was alleged to be drunk, met with an accident with bikers and due to high speed of his Porsche car led to the on-spot death of the two bikers. 
• The incident led to a massive protest in Pune. 
• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the minor based on various provisions under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MVA) under the charges of negligent and rash driving by the minor. 
• The minor was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and on the same day he was granted bail. 
• Prosecution on 21st May 2024 filed an application under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection act) 2015 (JJA), after imposition of Section 304 of IPC in the FIR against the minor and contented to review the bail order based on the new evidences as it was contended that the minor was under the influence of alcohol and smocking, has no license and evidence such as CCTV recordings were produced to support the same. 
• Considering the protests and mob violence in Pune, the JJB amended the bail order based on section 104 of JJA and ordered for the observation for rehabilitation of minor. 
• However, the bail was still not revoked but the order stated that the investigations had some discrepancies and minor needs psychological treatment. 
• After subsequent investigation minor’s stay in the observation was increased. 
• An application based on the writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the minor’s family stating that even after grant of bail he has been detained in the name of observation for days. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The bench observed that the main objective of Juvenile Justice Act is to protect and take care of the child when he conflicts with law. 
• It was further held that as per section 12 of the JJA a child when denied bail must be kept in the observation home and not otherwise. 
• It was also held that the amendment made by the Juvenile Justice Board as per Section 104 of the JJA and remand orders given by the board are illegal and cannot be used to deprive a child of his liberty and are in violation of Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the constitution.  
• The court held that a minor on bail cannot be detained in the observation home and therefore, writ of habeas corpus is maintainable. 

What is a Child in Conflict with Law? 

About:  

• The child in conflict with law is a concept based on the Juvenile justice Act defined under Section 2(13) of the act where it is stated that when a person who has not attained the age of 18 years has committed a crime or alleged to have been committed a crime shall be deemed to be a child in conflict with law. 
• It is generally presumed that a child is born with innocence and due to societal behaviors and psychological disparities they may be deprived of moral and ethical values which lead them to commit offences. 
• When a minor commits such crimes against society, it is said to conflict with the law. 
• It is noticed and observed that with the right kind of care and rehabilitation a child can be transformed into a better human. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty states that no person can be deprived of living his life with liberty.  
• Article 22(1): The Right to be informed about the arrest and to consult an advocate of a person who has been arrested. 

Provisions Related to Juvenile Justice Act 

• Section 2(13): Any person who has not attained the age of 18 years alleged or found to have committed an offence shall be called a child in conflict with laws. 
• Section 12(1): When a person who has not attained the age of 18 years alleged to have been committed an offence either bailable or non bailable offence shall be granted bail subject to that his bail would not result into any danger to him and proper care should be taken by the juvenile justice board while granting bail. 
• Section 3: This section ensures that a child covered under the purview of this act shall be reunited with his family as soon as possible subject to his best interest. 
• Section 104: This section empowers the Board to review its own decision on an application filled by the aggrieved party pertaining to the proper constitution of members specified in the act. 

Provisions Related to IPC  

• Section 279: Any person who drives rashly or negligently resulting in endangering the life of others shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding 6 months and fine upto1000 Rs. Or both. 
• Section 304 A: This section deals with the act of negligence not amounting to culpable homicide and shall be punishable with the term not exceeding 2 years or fine or both. 
• Section 337: Any person who causes hurt to the other person by his act of negligence shall be punishable with a term not exceeding 6 months or fine up to Rs 500 or both. 
• Section 338: Any person causing grievous hurt to others by negligent act shall be punished with the term not exceeding 2 years of with fine up to 1000 Rs. or both. 

Provisions Related Motor Vehicle Act 

• Section 177: Whoever contravenes any provisions of MV Act shall be punished with fine of Rs. 100 for the first offence and for Rs 300 for the subsequent offence. 
• Section 184: Any person driving dangerously shall be punished for a term not more than 6 months or a fine up to 1000rs for the first offence while for the subsequent offence a term not more than 2 years and fine not more than 2000Rs. 
• Section 190: This section contains provisions related to vehicles used in unsafe conditions and penalties have been given. 

Case Laws 

• Gautam Naulakha v. NIA (2023): In this case the parameters were discussed when a writ of Habeas corpus is maintainable i.e., majorly when there is a lack of jurisdiction, and a remand order is illegal. 
• Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan khan (1987): In this case, it was held that the discretion of granting bail to the accused of the court should be exercised as per the parameters underlined in this case and to protect the liberty of the accused.
• Naresh Goel v. Directorate of Enforcement & otrs.(2023): The writ of the habeas corpus shall not lie when a remand order is not challenged as per section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure.