In the case of Suhana Khatun Vs. The State of West Bengal, the matter of maintainability of the Anticipatory bail of the juvenile was referred to the larger bench because there emerged a divergence in the view of the present bench and the earlier bench.
Anticipatory Bails protect the person even before the arrest by the police if the person has apprehension of the arrest by the police. Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has laid down the important provisions regarding the Anticipatory Bails.
On the other hand, there are special remedies and safeguards available to the accused child under the Juvenile Justice Act. There emerge a conflict around the maintainability of the Anticipatory Bail due to the provisions protecting the child against the arrest in the Juvenile Justice Act. Also, the State argued that if Anticipatory Bail is granted then this would defeat the purpose of the Juveline Justice Act.
However, there were instances highlighted which supported the maintainability of the Anticipatory Bails to the minors. Also, there is no such special exclusion mentioned in the Crpc regarding the minors and when there are different views available for a situation in law then the one which favours the child should be adopted.
The Bench of Justice Arjit Banarjee and Justice Bivas Pattnayak prevailed the Juveline Justice Act over the Crpc. Furthermore, with this conclusion, the matter was referred to the larger bench.
Tags : #HIGHCOURTS #CRPC #ADVOCATES #BENCH #CALCUTTAHIGHCOURT #WESTBENGAL #JUDGE #LEGALNEWS #ANTICIPATORYBAIL #JUVENILEJUSTICEACT