The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the welfare of the child must override punitive assumptions in juvenile justice proceedings. In a significant ruling, the Court held that the denial of supurdgi - placement under parental custody - cannot be justified merely by the seriousness of the alleged offence, especially when social investigation reports indicate a supportive family environment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The child in conflict with law, born on 20 August 2008, was 16 years and 5 months old at the time of the alleged offence. He was charged under Sections 70(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to assault and criminal force. The Juvenile Justice Board, Ujjain, and subsequently the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, rejected his application for release on supurdgi to his father, citing fears of reoffending and moral degradation.
Procedural History
- 2025: Crime No. 594/2025 registered at Chimanganj Mandi Police Station, Ujjain
- August 2025: Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam, confirmed the child’s age as below 18
- 16 September 2025: Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Ujjain, denied supurdgi
- 25 September 2025: Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ujjain, upheld the denial in appeal
- October 2025: Criminal Revision No. 5748 of 2025 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release on supurdgi under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arguing that the lower courts ignored the social investigation report and violated the statutory mandate to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 permits denial of supurdgi solely on the grounds of the alleged offence’s severity, without considering the social investigation report and the child’s family background.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The advocate contended that Section 12 mandates that every child in conflict with law shall be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and, unless exceptional circumstances exist, released on supurdgi. He emphasized that the social investigation report showed no prior criminal exposure, the father was employed, and the child was a regular undergraduate student. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that presumption of innocence and welfare principles must prevail.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the nature of the offence was heinous and the child was close to 18, warranting stricter control. It claimed that release could lead to tampering with evidence or reoffending, and that the child’s trial as an adult under Section 15 of the JJ Act was imminent, making supurdgi inappropriate.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 12, which creates a presumption in favor of release on supurdgi unless the Board records reasons to the contrary. It noted that the lower courts had not referenced the social investigation report submitted before them, which explicitly stated the child’s non-criminal family background and academic engagement.
"The mere apprehension of reoffending, without concrete evidence or prior record, cannot override the statutory mandate of rehabilitation under Section 12."
The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Hari Ram where denial was upheld due to documented prior delinquency, noting the absence of any such history here. It held that the child’s age, educational status, and family support system were material factors that the lower courts failed to appreciate. The Court further clarified that even if the child is later tried as an adult under Section 15, his status as a juvenile at the time of the offence entitles him to the procedural safeguards of the Act, including supurdgi.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that supurdgi cannot be denied merely on the gravity of the alleged offence and set aside the orders of the lower courts. The child was ordered released to his father upon furnishing a supurdginama of Rs. 50,000, with conditions to remain present before the court and avoid unlawful influences.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Supurdgi Is the Default, Not the Exception
- Practitioners must insist on strict compliance with Section 12’s presumption in favor of release
- Denial requires specific, documented reasons tied to risk of reoffending or harm - not speculative fears
- Social investigation reports are not optional; their omission renders the order legally unsustainable
Age Proximity to 18 Does Not Nullify Juvenile Status
- A child aged 16 - 17 remains a juvenile under the Act regardless of the offence’s severity
- The possibility of trial as an adult under Section 15 does not negate the right to supurdgi during preliminary proceedings
- Courts must separate procedural status from substantive trial classification
Family Background Is Central to Welfare Assessment
- Employment of parents, absence of criminal nexus, and educational engagement are decisive factors
- Courts must not substitute their own assumptions for the findings of trained social workers
- Failure to engage with the social investigation report constitutes a violation of natural justice
