'Juveniles can't be arrested, need not seek anticipatory bail'

The Madras High Court has ruled that a juvenile accused of committing a crime cannot be arrested and this legal position obviates the need for them to seek anticipatory bail.
The ruling was given by a division bench of justices S Nagamuthu and Anita Sumanth, which had been tasked by the then Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul to determine if a plea by "a juvenile in conflict with law" seeking anticipatory bail was maintainable.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Nagamuthu said a study of the Juvenile Justice Act makes it clear that no police officer has been empowered to arrest "a child in conflict with the law" but only to "apprehend" him or her.

Making it clear that there cannot be fear of arrest in the case of a juvenile, the judge said, accordingly, a plea seeking anticipatory bail at the instance of the child in conflict with the law was not maintainable either before the high court or the sessions court, the judge said.
"Had it been the intention of the legislature that a police officer should be empowered to arrest a child in conflict with the law, it would have used the expression 'arrest' instead of 'apprehend' in the Juvenile Justice Act."
The legislature has empowered the police only to apprehend the child in conflict with the law and produce him or her before the Juvenile Justice Board.

The proviso to section 10 of the Juvenile Justice Act makes it very clear that in no case a child alleged to be in conflict with the law shall be placed in a police lock-up or a jail.

The board has been obliged to send the child either to an observation home or a place of safety.
In view of such safeguards and the legal position that a child in conflict with law cannot be arrested, it obviates the need to seek anticipatory bail, the bench held.
Similarly, a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to release the child in conflict with the law cannot be issued by the high court, the judge said.

The reference to the division bench was made following contradictory orders of judges when a juvenile filed a petition seeking to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a pending police case.
While one judge took a view that a juvenile seeking anticipatory bail was maintainable, two other judges held that it was not.
Hence, a reference was made to the division bench to answer the legal question as to whether a plea by a juvenile seeking advance bail was maintainable.