Calcutta High Court Says Minors Can Seek Anticipatory Bail, Citing No Bar in Juvenile Justice Law

A three-judge division bench comprising Justice Joy Sengupta, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh and Justice Biwas Patnaik delivered the landmark judgment. The majority view, held by Justices Sengupta and Ghosh, stated that anticipatory bailgranted under Section 438 of the CrPC—is a pre-arrest safeguard intended to protect personal liberty. Since the JJ Act applies only after a minor is apprehended and brought before the Juvenile Justice Board, the judges held that the law does not bar juveniles from availing the remedy earlier.

The case stemmed from petitions filed by four minors fearing arrest in matters registered at Raghunathganj Police Station in 2021. Conflicting opinions in earlier hearings prompted the single judge to refer the matter to a larger bench.

The bench observed that denying minors the right to anticipatory bail would deprive them of a constitutional protection available to adults, contradicting the welfare-centric spirit of the JJ Act. The court added that, if anticipatory bail is granted, judges may impose conditions tailored to safeguard the interests of the child without disrupting the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board, which begins only post-arrest.

However, Justice Patnaik dissented, arguing that allowing anticipatory bail could dilute the protective framework laid out in the JJ Act, which mandates a specialised, welfare-oriented investigative process once a minor enters the system.

The ruling is expected to influence how courts nationwide interpret juvenile rights, especially in cases where minors fear wrongful or premature arrest. Legal experts say the decision could prompt further debate on balancing child welfare with procedural protections under criminal law.