Repeating Offence While on Bail Justifies Denial of Bail to Child in Conflict with Law.

The Child in Conflict with Law (CCL/applicant) was apprehended in connection with FIR No. 11/2024 (PS Badarpur) for the murder of one Gaurav @ Paggal, who sustained multiple stab wounds inflicted by five assailants

The CCL was ordered to be tried as an adult before a Special Judge (POCSO), a decision which remains unchallenged

At the time of the alleged offense, the applicant was already on bail for another murder case (FIR No. 489/2023) and was further involved in a third case concerning robbery (FIR No. 542/2022)

The Special Court (POCSO) dismissed the applicant's bail plea based on the statutory bars under the Juvenile Justice Act, leading to the present application before the Delhi High Court

Whether there appear reasonable grounds to believe that the release of the CCL/applicant is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act

Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which mandates bail for a juvenile unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such release would lead to association with known criminals, exposure to danger, or defeat the ends of justice

Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

While the JJ Act is social welfare legislation, it should not be abused by organized syndicates to commit heinous crimes through juveniles

The Court rejected the applicant's contention that antecedents and the nature of the crime are irrelevant under Section 12 of the Act.

The Court reasoned that the "likelihood" of association with known criminals was not a vague apprehension but a concrete reality in this case, as the applicant allegedly committed the current murder while on bail for a previous murder charge involving multiple co-accused

The Court emphasized that the applicant’s repeated involvement in heinous crimes (two murders and one robbery) indicates a pattern that falls squarely within the proviso of Section 12

the Court noted the State's concern regarding the potential intimidation of public eyewitnesses yet to be examined, concluding that the ends of justice would be defeated if bail were granted

The High Court held that the case was not fit for bail given the applicant's criminal history and the fact that the offense occurred while he was already enjoying the liberty of bail in a similar matter

The bail application was dismissed