Release on probation

Court, while exercising its discretion, would take into account, as to whether crime so committed by the juvenile was accidental, or culmination of compulsion of circumstances faced by him, or was a planned and intentional act and that whether his crime was against a particular person, his enemy or the whole society

When Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, was visualized in its entirety, it reflected that it had classified the juveniles into two categories: the one below 15 years of age and other above than that

Said two groups had been differently treated by the Ordinance itself

Clause (b) of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 took away the vested discretion of court when juvenile would reach the age of 18 years

Proviso to subsection (7) of S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, had put fetters on grant of bail to child of the age of 15 years or above, even on statutory ground, if there were reasonable grounds to believe that such child was involved in an offen ce which was serious, heinous, gruesome, brutal, sensational in character, or shocking to public.

Discretion had been vested in the Juvenile Court to release a juvenile on probation, or to send him to borstal institution

Juvenile Court could reduce the period of probation or imprisonment in case the court was satisfied that further imprisonment or probation was necessary

No absolute duty was cast on the Juvenile Court to release the convict in all circumstances on probation

Discretion, vested in the court, was to be exercised justly, fairly, honestly and with all reasonableness and sound application of judicial mind

Court was required to consider all attending circumstances of the case including the behaviour, conduct, aptitude and antecedents of the juvenile convict

Vesting of discretion did not mean release of a juvenile convict in all circumstances, regardless of pre-conditions

Had it been the intention of the Legislature to exercise said discretion in such an arbitrary manner, it could have easily inserted the word "shall" in S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 leaving no room of assessment with the court.

Mere minority or juvenile ship of an accused, was not the criteria for grant of relief of release on probation under S.11 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

In matter of conviction, there could be some minor offences, in which, the sentence could be normally short, and if the court passed an order of conviction, beneficial provision could be exercised in his favour

If accused was charged for an heinous offence of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment, his case could not be treated at par with minor offences

Age type and seriousness of the offence, and past record of criminal activities of accused, at the time of conviction, would also be a relevant factor, which would also be adhered to

Juvenile Justice System, which was certainly meant to treat a child accused with care and sensitivity, no doubt, offering him a chance to reform and settle into the mainstream of society, but same could not be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the cause of justice, while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences

Court must be sensitive in dealing with the juveniles who were involved in cases of serious nature like, murder, gang rape, terrorism, sexual molestation and host of other offences

Minor/juvenile accused could never be allowed to abuse the statutory protection and concession rather involvement in a flagitious crime, must be meted out stringent punishment to discourage the involvement of minors by the people for settling their score through them (Juveniles).