The Calcutta High Court on January 20, 2022 referred to a legal decision on whether or not the expected bail application under Section 438 of the CrPc was valid. The dispute was based on an instance where four minors were accused of crimes under IPC, causing grievous hurt and attempted murder. Later on, it was decided by the bench that a minor who is in conflict with the law is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail and should get arrested.
There were still conflicting opinions and when the bench looked the other way, the views were different, and in the case of Saud, who was represented by his father, it was found out that HC had granted him the bail he had been waiting for. And by looking at various other judgments and precedents the court received contrasting opinions, first in the case of Krishna v. State of West Bengal, the bench had reserved that the pending bail application would not proceed and in another case of Miss Surbhi Jain it was held that the application can be considered, it is maintainable and but the Calcutta HC bench did not comply with the later one.
The matter was referred to the Chief Justice and Subsequently, the larger bench disposed of the plea. The arguments presented, in which the petitioner asserted that the juvenile justice act could not be interpreted to eliminate the provisions that are an integral part of Article 21 of the constitution. On the other hand, the state argued that the provisions of 438 would interfere with the fundamental processes set out in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and thus the application was not complied with and it is not maintainable.
We offer a wide range of lawyers to cater to all your every legal needs and requirement.
Our team provides you support in managing your legal issue without any additional and hidden charges.
Once you finalise the lawyer, you can proceed with predefined time estimation & pricing.
Dedicated Case Follow-up Manager to assist you in coordination with the Lawyer.