Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 2: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a juvenile directed to face trial as an adult continues to enjoy the statutory protections available under the Juvenile Justice Act, but the right to bail is not absolute and may be denied when circumstances falling within the statutory exceptions are established.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M.A. Chowdhary made the observations while dismissing an appeal challenging the rejection of bail to an accused in the 2020 Ban Toll Plaza terror attack case.
The appeal was directed against the November 17, 2025, order of the Fast Track Court, Jammu, functioning as a designated Children’s Court, which had rejected the accused’s bail application.
The case arose from the January 31, 2020, incident at Ban Toll Plaza, Jammu, where militants travelling in a truck allegedly opened fire on police and security personnel, injuring a police constable.
The investigation was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which alleged that the appellant was involved in a conspiracy concerning the movement and facilitation of terrorists.
The appellant was 17 years, five months and 11 days old at the time of the alleged occurrence.
Following a preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Juvenile Justice Board directed that he be tried as an adult.
Advocates Jahangir Ahmed Wani and Aditya Pandita, representing the appellant, argued that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, continued to govern his entitlement to bail even after the decision to conduct the trial as an adult.
The counsel submitted that the gravity of the alleged offence and the direction to face an adult trial could not automatically deprive a juvenile of statutory protection.
Representing the NIA were Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma and Public Prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma.
The NIA opposed bail, referring to the accused’s alleged association with a Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed handler and other persons allegedly involved in the conspiracy.
Examining the legal position, the Division Bench held that a child in conflict with law ordinarily enjoys the protection of Section 12, irrespective of whether the alleged offence is bailable or non-bailable.
The Court clarified that a juvenile does not cease to be a child merely because a competent court has directed that he be tried as an adult.
However, the Bench observed that bail can be refused where reasonable grounds exist for believing that release may bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
The Court emphasised that such apprehensions must be supported by material on record and cannot rest upon mere conjecture.
Considering the alleged contacts with terrorist handlers and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the Bench found that the trial court had sufficient grounds to invoke the statutory exceptions.
The High Court also considered the appellant’s incarceration since February 2020 but held that prolonged custody alone did not warrant interference in the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the rejection of bail while clarifying that its observations would not influence the trial on merits.
The appellant was granted liberty to seek bail afresh if there is a material change in circumstances. (JNF) |
