Introduction: Right To Be Heard Under The Juvenile Justice Act
The Delhi High Court ruled that courts do not have to hear the complainant at every stage of bail proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh emphasized that juvenile justice prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution. The Court stated that a complainant’s involvement in such proceedings is a matter of judicial discretion, not an enforceable right.
Case Background
The complainant had challenged a trial court order that upheld a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) decision granting bail to a child in conflict with law (CCL) in a murder case. The complainant also sought to try the juvenile as an adult.
The trial court found that the JJB had followed due process, considering multiple reports, including the Preliminary Assessment Report, Social Investigation Report, and Physical-Mental Drug Assessment Report. Since no procedural illegality was found, the trial court rejected the complainant’s plea.
Petitioner’s Stance
The complainant argued that:
The JJB erred in determining the child’s age.
The bail order was unjustified.
The complainant was denied a hearing, violating natural justice principles.
Court’s Ruling On Juvenile Justice Act
The Court dismissed the complainant’s challenge. It ruled that:
Age Determination: The JJB correctly followed Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules and Section 94 of the JJ Act. Age determination does not require mathematical precision but must adhere to statutory guidelines.
Bail Presumption: The JJ Act presumes in favor of bail unless three statutory exceptions are met. The complainant failed to prove any of these exceptions.
The JJ Act does not require notifying or hearing the complainant in bail matters.
Final Verdict
The Court upheld the JJB’s bail order, reinforcing that granting bail aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects personal liberty. Since bail does not legally prejudice the complainant or victim, the court dismissed the petition.
