The Rajasthan High Court, sitting as a single bench presided over by Justice Ravi Chirania, recently considered a bail application filed on behalf of a thirteen‑year‑old child who stands accused of committing murder. After hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the defence, the bench concluded that the bail request must be refused.
The court’s decision was primarily influenced by its observation that the police had failed to fulfil a mandatory procedural duty. The bench noted that, although the complainant had submitted a written refusal to undergo a post‑mortem examination at the relevant time, it remained the responsibility of the investigating officers to conduct a panchnama in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench characterised the omission as an intentional lapse on the part of the police, suggesting that the failure was not merely inadvertent but reflected a deliberate neglect of duty.
Justice Chirania emphasized that the panchnama serves as a crucial evidentiary step, particularly in cases involving allegations of homicide, and that its proper execution safeguards the integrity of the investigation. The bench held that the police’s disregard for this obligation, despite the complainant’s explicit refusal for a post‑mortem, raised serious concerns about the thoroughness and impartiality of the inquiry into the alleged offence.
In weighing the bail application, the bench also took into account the age of the accused and the gravity of the charge. While acknowledging that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, mandates a rehabilitative approach for children in conflict with the law, the court observed that the nature of the alleged crime—murder—necessitated a careful assessment of the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The bench concluded that, given the identified investigative shortcomings and the seriousness of the accusation, releasing the juvenile on bail would be contrary to the interests of justice.
The court further remarked that the alleged intentional lapse by the police could not be overlooked when evaluating the credibility of the investigation. It stressed that any perception of partiality or negligence on the part of the investigating agency undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and may prejudice the fair trial of the accused. Accordingly, the bench directed that the investigation be conducted with strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and that any deficiencies be promptly rectified.
Operatively, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the order of the lower court denying bail to the juvenile accused. The bench made it clear that its refusal to grant bail was not based solely on the age of the accused or the nature of the offence, but was significantly informed by the perceived intentional lapse in the police investigation. The decision serves as a reminder to investigative agencies of their non‑delegable duty to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, even when faced with objections from complainants.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in monitoring police conduct and ensuring that investigative lapses, especially those characterised as intentional, do not impede the administration of justice. It also highlights the balancing act courts must perform when considering bail for juvenile offenders charged with serious offences, weighing procedural integrity against the protective objectives of juvenile justice legislation.