ABSTRACT
In a recent incident, a 17-year-8-month-old boy killed 2 IT- professionals under the influence of intoxication in the Porsche car gifted to him by his billionaire father. Later was released on bail due to his status as a minor under the prevailing legal definition. the speed of the car was reported to be approx. 200km/hr. This horrific incident was such that it took a few seconds for people standing nearby to the place of the accident to understand what had just happened. Following the incident, there was a widespread public outcry occurred when it became known that the minor released on bail by submitting a mere 300-word essay on “road accident and their solutions”. This led to public indignation questioning whether the value of two lives can be equated with a mere 300-word essay. There is growing concern among the people about whether serious crimes committed by minors can be forgiven this easily and whether this sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Therefore, the article aims to address these questions and will further discuss what is juvenile delinquency and the procedure established by law regarding the trial of juvenile offenders.
WHO ARE JUVENILE AND WHAT CONSTITUTE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
A juvenile is any person below the age of 18 years. When such a person commits a crime, it is termed juvenile delinquency. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 safeguards the rights of these minors and provides provisions to treat them with care and protection in cases involving criminal offenses committed by them.
WAS THE BAIL OF THE MINOR VALID?
The Indian Juvenile justice system is designed to protect the rights and welfare of children who have acted in violation of the law, emphasizing their care and rehabilitation. The legal framework is based on the principle that juveniles if treated appropriately and rehabilitated, can become valuable assets to society. Under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015the primary objective of the Juvenile Justice board is to ensure the release of a minor offender unless there are specific conditions such as the risk of association of the minor with a known criminal, facing moral or psychological danger, or if the release of such minor would defeat the end of justice. While precedents have established that the ground ‘end of the justice’ should be measured in such a way as to address the welfare of the minor as in the case of Juvenile Vs. Union territory of J&K [1](2024) the High Court interpreted section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and held that granting bail to the juvenile in conflict with the law serves the end of justice if it addresses the child’s welfare and rehabilitation.
In the case of Naisul Khan Vs. state of Assam and Ors[2] (2010 )Gauhati High Court analyzed the criteria for granting bail to Juveniles under section 12 of the Act. The court held that bail should generally be granted unless there is clear reason to believe that the release of the minor would result in the contrary. The court also emphasized that denying bail should be protective, not punitive.
In another case, Tejiram Nagrachi Juvenile vs, state of Chhattisgarh [3]in this case, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the provisions of CrPC on bail, Particularly section 438, do not apply to minors as they are governed by the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 as it provides a separate framework for dealing with minors in conflict with the law, which prioritize their welfare over punishment.
Therefore, an objective reading of the law and relevant cases, shows that the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to grant bail to the child in conflict with the law aligns with legal precedent and the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act.
CAN A MINOR BE TREATED AS AN ADULT IN THIS CASE?
The case involves multiple complexities starting from the charge of the accused under sec 304A instead of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the police officers under the influence of MLA being questioned. Section 304A of the Code states the liability of causing death by negligence, for which the maximum punishment under this section is 2 years in contrast, section 304 of IPC addresses the culpable homicide not amounting to murder covering the act done with the knowledge that it they are likely to cause death but without intention to cause death. the maximum punishment under this section is 10 years of imprisonment.
In this case, the minor must have known the potential consequences of his act that driving recklessly at high speed can cause someone’s death.
However, even if he would have been booked under sec 304 which prescribes a maximum punishment of 10 years, this section does not specify a minimum punishment, therefore, such an act would also fall under the category of ‘serious crime’ rather than a ‘heinous crime ‘defined by Juvenile Justice act, 2015
for a minor to be treated as an adult under this Act, the offense must be a heinous offense with a minimum punishment of 7 years or more, therefore, section 304 technically does not qualify as a ‘heinous offense’ under the act.
In the case of Shilpa Maittal v. State of NCT and Anr [4](2020) – In this case, the court overlooks the crimes that should fall under the category of heinous and serious offenses. This case involved facts similar to the present case where a minor killed a person with his father’s expensive car, the court opined that the offense including sec 304 under the ‘4th’ category of offense thus should be considered a ‘serious offense’ and not ‘heinous’.
But does this mean the minor can evade significant consequences of taking someone’s life? if not the minor who is liable in this case?
Until further investigation, the minor was sent to the observation home, as per the requirement of the JJ Act. Meanwhile, the parents of minors are facing legal action. The father was arrested for allowing his son to drive without having a valid license under sections 75 & 77 of the JJ Act as the act shows the negligent behavior of parents towards the minor. Pub owners have also been arrested for serving liquor to minors without proper inquiry.
Additionally, there were allegations of tampering with evidence. The minor’s mother was accused of forgery and destruction of evidence by swapping her blood sample with that of the minor where two doctors were also suspended for tempering the evidence by throwing the blood samples in a dustbin in exchange for money. The grandfather of a minor was accused of wrongfully confining and coercing the driver to take the blame for the accident.
Such incidents compel society to question whether the current legal framework adequately addresses the severity of crimes committed by minors and whether the associated parties are held appropriately accountable for such careless behaviour towards the minor.
CONCLUSION
Considering all these aspects, people’s anger is understandable, However, it is essential to see the issue from the perspective of law to understand what is the juvenile jurisprudence behind making such law and what was the intention of the legislature behind such law. These laws aim to protect the interest of Juveniles in all possible circumstances and prevent them from being treated as an adult except in certain circumstances.
We also need to understand that actions cannot be expected to be performed in contravention of the law by the authorities and also if a juvenile cannot be punished for the offense, then the responsibility should fall on their parents for their negligent act by allowing the minor to drive by breaching the law and flaunting their wealth. Additionally, efforts to destroy the evidence to evade the law and attempts to escape liability should be condemned. Punishment should be extended to all of them who exploit the law: those who sell vehicles without appropriate registration, who allow minors freedom to drink without following proper verification of their age, and those who perpetuate a sense of impunity towards the minor. Failure to hold these individuals accountable will lead minors like Vedant Agarwal to believe that they can operate above the law with the power of their money, endangering innocent lives and undermining the legal system.
[1] Crl R No.22/2023
[2] 2010 SCC OnLine Gau 225
[3] 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 24.
[4] 2020 SCC OnLine SC 20
