“The country could face chaos if it did not provide adequate protection and care to children, especially those in conflict with law. The Juvenile Justice System was the result of a great deal of thinking by nations across the world and has to be implemented in letter and spirit.”
– Former CJI Justice Altamas Kabir
It is definitely to say the least, most rejoicing, most refreshing, most reassuring and most rejuvenating to learn that the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X vs The State of Tamil Nadu in CRL OP(MD). No.20188 of 2024 that was pronounced as recently as on 21.11.2024 in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction for bail in Crime No. 204 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police and considering the petition for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has put the spotlight on the shortcomings in the treatment of juvenile offenders noting that the current approach often drives them toward a future of criminality. We need to note that the Madurai Bench was most forthcoming and forthright in suggesting the expansion of reformative initiatives to be undertaken all across Tamil Nadu to reintegrate juvenile offenders into society and prevent them from becoming habitual criminals. On a personal note, I very strongly feel that this needs to be undertaken not just in Tamil Nadu but all across India and for this to happen it is the Judges of other High Courts who too must step forward and emulate what the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Anand Venkatesh held so explicitly, elegantly, eruditely, eloquently and effectively in this leading case! This will definitely go a long way in ensuring that these juvenile offenders instead of turning into hardened criminals are reintegrated into the mainstream of society which is exactly what is the real purpose of this notable judgment!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Anand Venkatesh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.09.2024 for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC in Crime No.204 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 of this robust judgment that, “The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in the theft of some movable articles like machine motor and submersible motor worth about Rs.45,000/-.”
On the one hand, the Bench enunciates in para 3 of this noteworthy judgment that, “The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is hardly aged about 19 years and that as a juvenile, there were four cases registered against him and presently, four cases were registered and he was arrested on the same day in all the four cases. He further submitted that false cases are foisted against the petitioner and that the petitioner has suffered incarceration from 29.09.2024.”
On the other hand, we see that the Bench then points out in para 4 of this progressive judgment that, “Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He further submitted that there are eight previous cases against the petitioner, out of which, four cases were registered, when he was a juvenile and four cases were registered after he attained majority. It was further submitted that the petitioner is repeatedly involved in the theft cases and as a result of which, he was a nuisance to the society. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 5 of this pragmatic judgment that, “This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.”
Most significantly, most sagaciously and most remarkably, the Bench then encapsulates in para 6 what constitutes the cornerstone of this enlightening judgment articulating most forcefully and conceding most candidly postulating that, “The case in hand is a typical case study as to how the criminal justice system works in this country, when an youngster gets caught while committing a crime and thereafter how he is sucked into a web of series of cases, which inundates him. He is pushed to a corner where the youngster understands that even if he is not involved in a criminal case, the Police are going to rope him in other cases and therefore, he decides to continue committing various offences. At one stage, this youngster will end up as a gang leader and will become a larger nuisance to the Society. This is the story of many juveniles, who are caught committing a crime and who ultimately end up becoming incorrigible offenders. Even though efforts are being taken to reform such juveniles, such efforts have not spread across the State of Tamil Nadu.”
While citing an enriching example of such a reformatory project, the Bench then hastens to add robustly in para 7 observing precisely that, “For instance, in Chennai, there is a reformatory project conducted in the name of (*)PARAVAI AND PATTAM Projects. This effort has the support of the State Government and the State Government has also allocated separate funds to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- recently for the said project. This effort must spread through out the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that such juvenile offenders are brought into the main stream of the Society and they are not pushed to become notorious criminals in future. The Society and the system owes a responsibility to ensure that the juvenile offenders are brought back into mainstream of the Society. The copy of this order shall be marked to the Inspector General of Prison’s and Correctional Services, (Head Quarters), Gandhi Irvin Road, Egmore, Chennai-08, the Deputy Inspector General of Prison’s and Correctional Services, Madurai Range, Arasaradi, Madurai-16 and the Deputy Inspector General of Prison’s and Correctional Services, Trichy Range, Race Course Road, Trichy-620 020.”
While striking the right chord, it is worth noting that the Bench then lays down in para 8 of this brilliant judgment holding succinctly that, “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the manner in which repeated FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, who is hardly aged about 19 years and also the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration from 29.09.2024, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.”
Finally, the Bench then stipulates in para 9 of this courageous judgment holding concisely that, “Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, out of which one surety shall be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Madurai and on further conditions that:-
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioner shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.”
In a nutshell, one feels most privileged and honoured to read such an enlightening judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice N Anand Venkatesh which has underscored the utmost importance of reformatory approach for bringing back juvenile offenders into the mainstream of society which can be possible only by instilling faith in him/her that if they want, they can still be absorbed in the mainstream of society without facing harassment from police or from anyone else! It also cannot be lost sight of that this alone explains why the essence of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules framed thereunder in 2007 is restorative and not retributive which provides for rehabilitation and re-integration of children in conflict with law into mainstream society and it must be implemented with a liberal and pro-juvenile mindset by counselling them and not just condemning them to languish in jails which will only serve to rather harden them into dangerous criminal which will not be in the interest of either the juvenile nor the society as we see has been pointed out so very commendably, courageously and concisely in this leading case also! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
