CONCEPT OF BAIL RELATED TO JUVENILE

SUBMITTED TO:

MS. SOMA BATTACHARJYA

SUBMITTED BY:

AMAN DWIVEDI

2018LLB008

IVth SEMESTER
 Meaning of Bail
Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or an appeal, by
the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal authority.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, what is contemplated by bail is to “procure the release of a
person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place
designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court.”

Bail under criminal Procedure Code:

Section 436 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of bailable offenses. Section 436
provides that when person not accused of a non-bailable offense is arrested or detained he can be
detained as right to claim to be released on bail.

This section entitles a person other than the accused of a non-bailable offense to be released on
bail, it may be recalled that S. 50(2) makes it obligatory for a police officer arresting such a
person without a warrant to inform him his right to be released on bail.

Section 436 (1) of the Code signifies that release on bail is a matter of right, or in other words,
the officer-in-charge of a police station or any court does not have any discretion whatsoever to
deny bail in such cases. The word “appear” in this sub- clause is wide enough to include
voluntary appearance of the person accused of an offense even where no summons or warrant
has been issued against him. There is nothing in S. 436 to exclude voluntary appearance or to
suggest that the appearance of the accused must be in the obedience of a process issued by the
court. The surrender and the physical presence of the accused with the submission to the
jurisdiction and order of the court is judicial custody, and the accused may be granted bail and
released from such custody.

The right to be released on bail under S. 436(1) cannot be nullified indirectly by fixing too high
amount of bond or bail-bond to be furnished by the person seeking bail. Section 440(1) provides
the amount of every bond executed under this chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the
circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive. Further S. 440(2) empowers the High
Court or the Court of Sessions may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate
be reduced.
Sub-section (2) of S. 436 makes a provision to effect that a person who absconds or has broken
the condition of his bail bond when released on bail is a bailable case on a previous occasion,
shall not as of right to be entitled to bail when brought before the court on any subsequent date
even though the offense may be bailable.

Of course, if facts are brought to the notice of the court which go to show that having regard to
the condition and background of the accused his previous record and the nature and
circumstances of the offense, there may be a substantial risk of his nonappearance at the trial, as
for example, where the accused is a notorious bad character or confirmed criminal or the offense
is serious the court may not release the accused on his personal bond and may insist on bail with
sureties. But in the majority of cases, considerations like family ties and relationship, roots in the
community, employment status etc. may prevail with the court in releasing the accused on his
personal bond and particularly in cases where the offense is not grave and the accused is poor or
belongs to a weaker section of the community, release on personal bond could, as far as possible,
be preferred. But even while releasing the accused on personal bond it is necessary to caution the
court that the amount of the bond which it.

Section 436A . Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be
detained –

The new provision Section 436Awas introduced in order to solve the problems of undertrials'
who were languishing in jails as they will now be given an opportunity to be set free instead of
endlessly waiting for their trial to take place. This move has been made due to a faulty criminal
justice system and provides a makeshift method of providing justice and relief to undertrial
prisoners. This seems to suggest that the Legislature and the Government have accepted the
existence of the faulty system and their inability to do anything about it. For this purpose section
436 A was inserted.

According to S. 436-A, a person who has undergone detention for a period extending upto half of
the maximum period of imprisonment imposed for a particular offense, shall be released on
her/his personal bond with or without sureties. The procedure provided is that the Court has to
hear the Public Prosecutor and give its decision with reasons in writing. The Court may release
the applicant, or if not satisfied may order for the continued detention of the applicant. However,
no prisoner can be detained for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment
provided. The exception to the section is that it is not applicable to offenders who have been
sentenced to death.

Moving onto the (de)merits of the provisions itself, S. 436-A gives discretion to the Court to set
the prisoner free or to make him/her continue imprisonment. There is no mention of any
applications having to be filed under the section. The first part of the section states that any
prisoner who has served more than half the term of his/her imprisonment 'shall' be released.
However, the proviso puts a restriction on the mandatory provision by giving discretionary
powers to the courts. This raises questions regarding the implementation of the provision. There
is every chance that a prisoner may be sent back to jail to serve a period longer than the half term
of his/her sentence. Till the Judges give their written reasons for the same, one will not know on
what grounds a continuation of the term can be ordered as the section does not provide any
guidelines.

Section 437 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of non-bailable offenses. In
such cases, bail is not a matter of right. Court has sufficient discretion to deny or to grant bail.
First Schedule to the Code provides the list of bailable and non-bailable offenses. Further cases
often arise under S. 437, where though the court regards the case as fit for the grant of bail, it
regards imposition of certain conditions as necessary in the circumstances. To meet this need
sub-section (3) of S. 437 provides:

When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offense punishable with

imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offense under Chapter VI,
Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abatement of, or
conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offense, is released on bail under subsection (1), the
Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary: -

(a)In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed under this Chapter, or (b)In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is
suspected, or (c)Otherwise in the interests of Justice.

It will be noticed that: -

1) The power to impose conditions has been given to the court and not to any police officer

2) The power to impose conditions can only be exercised –

i) Where the offence is punishable with the imprisonment which may extend to seven years or
more or

ii) Where the offence is one under Chapter VI (Offences against the State), Chapter XVI
(offences against the human body), or Chapter XVII (offences against the property) of I.P.C, or

iii) Where the offence is one of the abetment of or conspiracy to or attempt to commit any such
offence as mentioned above in (i) and (ii).

Anticipatory bail In simple terms "Anticipatory bail" means, "bail in anticipation of arrest".
Anticipatory bail -a term not found in any Indian legislation- refers to a prearrest order passed by
a court that says that in the event a person is arrested, he is to be granted bail.
Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code states as follows;

1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having
committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a
direction under this section, and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such
arrest he shall be released on bail.

2. When the High Court or the Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may
include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may
think fit, including-

(a) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required;

(b) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(c) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(d) such other condition as may be imposed.

If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station on

such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of
such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail. If a Magistrate taking cognizance of such
offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue
a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court.

It should be noted that where the High Court or Court of Sessions has not passed any interim
order under this section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be
open to an officer in charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the
basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

The anticipatory bail cannot be granted after a Magistrate has issued warrant. The presence of the
applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the
application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public
Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.

Anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that
duration the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court to deal with the
matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress
or the charge-sheet is submitted.

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in all cases as a matter of course. The exercise of power has
to be invoked in exceptional case only. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to
the free and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment and unjustified
detention of the accused.

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. Applicant can approach High Court for
grant of anticipatory bail even if his application is rejected by the Court of Sessions, but not vice
versa. Where a matter of dowry death is under investigation it is not prudent for High Court to
grant anticipatory bail. If the application for anticipatory bail is rejected the second application is
not barred.

When can an Anticipatory bail be granted?

It can be given when a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence (refer to the First
Schedule of CrPC for the list of offences labelled thus). It is given in those circumstances when
the court believes that there is a possibility that the accused has been falsely implicated and that
his freedom will not hamper the investigation of the crime. Having said, bail granted under s.
438 may be cancelled at any time if the investigation is hampered or if a condition under the
order is violated by the arrested person. It is important to note that the attendance of the person
apprehending arrest is compulsory at the final hearing.

When can an Anticipatory bail be not granted?

 There are certain circumstances where applications for anticipatory bail are normally
refused. These include:
  For offences/contraventions under certain specific statutes like the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Defence of India Rules,
1971. The provisions of s. 438 are normally refused to those accused of particularly
 Heinous offences like murder and rape.

How to obtain an Anticipatory Bail?

One can avail the provisions of s. 438 by filing an application for the same in the High Court or
Sessions Court. If an application in the Sessions Court is rejected, the person may file the same
in the High Court, but not vice versa. The application may be preferred to the relevant court in
whose jurisdiction the accused was purported to commit the offence or the jurisdiction in which
the arrested person apprehends arrest.

What is the need for such a provision?

The main objective behind such a provision is to prevent those falsely implicated in criminal
cases to be subject to jail-time. The main factors considered while granting prayers for
anticipatory bail are that:

 The full and free investigation of the offence should not be hampered.
 The accused must not be subject to harassment and unjustified detention.

Cancellation Of Bail:

According to S. 437(5) of CRPC 1973 any court which has released a person on bail under (1) or
sub sec (2) of S. 437 may if considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested
and committed to custody.

The power to cancel bail has been given to the court and not to a police officer. Secondly, the
court which granted the bail can alone cancel it. The bail granted by a police officer cannot be
cancelled by the court of a magistrate. For cancellation of bail in such a situation, the powers of
the High Court or Court of Session under S. 439 will have to invoked. Rejection of bail when
bails applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to
reject a bail application in a non-bailable cases than to cancel a bail granted in such case.
Cancellation of bail necessary involves the review of a decision already made and can large be
permitted only if , by reason of supervening circumstances it would be no longer conducive to a
fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. However, bail granted illegal
or improperly by a wrong arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there
is absence of supervening circumstances. If there is no material to prove that the accused abused
his freedom court may not cancel the bail.
BAIL GRANT OF TO CHILD

Under Juvenile Legislation, the word “apprehension” replaces the word “arrest”. The precautions
and safeguards contained in the Constitution of India and Supreme Court judgments with regards
to the rights of an accused on arrest also apply to juveniles in conflict with law. The JJB on first
production should seek a police report with regards to the date and time of the juvenile’s arrest
and his admission to the Observation Home, and whether a parent or guardian or person of
juvenile’s choice and the PO has been informed about the juvenile’s arrest. Moreover, the
particulars so furnished by the police should be gotten confirmed from the juvenile.

Bail is the release of an accused person pending investigation and/ or trial, while at the same time
ensuring his future attendance in court at the trial stage. The CrPC divided offences into bailable
and non-bailable offences. The position is quite different under juvenile jurisprudence. Since the
enactment of different Children Acts, the grant of bail has been mandatory under juvenile
legislation except in certain prescribed instances that could cause harm to the child if so released.

Reasons for refusal of bail to a juvenile - The guiding principle for refusal or grant of bail is
the interest and welfare of the juvenile rather than the offence committed. Section 18(7) of JJ Act
2015 provides that bail to a juvenile may be refused (i) if there appear reasonable grounds for
believing (ii) that the release is likely to bring her/him in association with any known criminal, or
(iii) expose her/him to moral danger, or (iv) defeat the ends of justice. A juvenile who has been
refused bail by the police officer may be released on bail by the juvenile court if it ic satisfied
that there are no reasonable grounds for refusing bail. The case of the juvenile for release on bail
may be reconsidered if the grounds for refusal of bail cease to exist (i) If there appear reasonable
grounds for believing - The circumstances in which the juvenile was arrested or detained by the
police or in which she/he appears or is brought before the juvenile court may indicate whether
there are a reasonable grounds for believing that the release is against the interest of the juvenile.
The risk involved in releasing a juvenile in such circumstances is too high as any hopes for
reclaiming the juvenile may be lost if the apprehension proves real. (ii) Release is likely to bring
her/him in association with any know criminal - If the offence alleged to have been committed
by the juvenile, could not have been committed by the child alone, it may be an indicator against
grant of bail. The nature of offence, the mode of its commission, the circumstances of arrest may
be taken into consideration for this purpose. For example, the facts that a juvenile is apparently a
drug addict and has been arrested for selling drugs, may be reasonable grounds for refusing bail
because release in such a case will most probably bring him in contact with other drug dealers.
Similarly a child arrested with group of

In normal course, a juvenile is entitled to bail, notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His
bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his release
is likely to bring into association with any known criminal or expose his moral, physical
or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
 The language in Section 12 of the juvenile justice Act, 2015 that “notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for
the time being in force ” mandates that this Section is having overriding effect and the
juvenile accused shall be released.
 Since the juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to be released on bail, he is also entitled
to get interim bail. It may be pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the
case of Sukhwant Sing & ors. Vs. State of Punjab1,that when there is power to grant
bail, there is inherent power to the court concerned to grant interim bail to the person,
pending final disposal of the bail application and it is in the discretion of the concerned
Court to grant interim bail. The same is applicable to the Juvenile Justice Board. When
pending final disposal of the application, juvenile may be released on interim bail.

1
(2009) 7 SCC 559
 DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CHILD

Determination of the age of a child under the JJA is essential for two specific reasons.
Firstly such age determination is of paramount importance to find out whether or not the person
so accused falls under the purview of the JJA.
Secondly, recording of the same as nearly and accurately as possible is essential for deciding the
duration of institutionalization. This is however not an easy task especially in borderline cases,
the reason being, children usually do not have any documentary evidence and medical
examinations.

The second question that is raised in relation to determination of age is that of burden of proof.
The Supreme Court has in the case of Gopinath Ghosh and Bhola Bhagath v State of Bihar 2
categorically stated that the responsibility of adjudging the age of the accused in case of any
doubts as brought forth lies with the Magistrate and the Court as dealing with the said matters.

While determining the age, as observed by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajinder Chandra Vs.
State of Chhatisgarh3, the approach of the Courts or Juvenile Justice Board should not be hyper
technical. It obliges the court only to make an inquiry, not an investigation or a trial, an inquiry
not under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but under the J.J. Act. Criminal Courts, JJ Board,
Committees etc., we have noticed, proceed as if they are conducting a trial, inquiry, enquiry or
investigation as per the Code. Section 9 & 94 of JJA 2015 has also used certain expressions
which are also be borne in mind. It uses the expression on the basis appearance.
Further, the age determination inquiry has to be completed and age be determined within fifteen
days which is also an indication of the manner in which the inquiry has to be conducted and
completed. “Age determination inquiry” contemplated under section 94 of the JJ Act 2015
enables the court to seek evidence and in that process, the court can obtain the matriculation or
equivalent certificates, if available. Only in the absence of any matriculation or equivalent
certificates, the court need obtain the date of birth certificate from the school first attended other
than a play school. Only in the absence of matriculation or equivalent certificate or the date of

2
1997 (2) ALD Cri 645
3
AIR 2002 SC 748
birth certificate from the school first attended, the court need obtain the birth certificate given by
a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat (not an affidavit but certificates or
documents). The question of obtaining medical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board
arises only if the above mentioned documents are unavailable. In case exact assessment of the
age cannot be done, then the court, for reasons to be recorded, may, if considered necessary, give
the benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his or her age on lower side within the margin
of one year.

ESSENTIALS TO TRY THE OFFENCE AS ADULT

The Children Court to decide the aspect as to whether the child is to be tried as an adult if
 age group of child is 16-18
 Committed heinous crime having minimum imprisonment of more than seven years .
 Who commits a serious offence, may be tried as an adult if he is apprehended after the
age of 21 years.
 The Board on inquiry and assessment of child of
• His mental and physical capacity to commit such offence,
•Ability to understand consequences of such offence and
•Circumstances in which he allegedly committed an offence.

The JJBs will conduct a preliminary inquiry of a crime committed by a child within a specified
time period and decides whether he should be sent to rehabilitation center or sent to a children’s
court to be tried as an adult. The board can take the help of psychologists and psycho-social
workers and other experts to take the decision.
Such an inquiry is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of first
production of the child before the Board, unless the period is extended, for a maximum period of
two more months by the Board, having regard to the circumstances of the case and after
recording the reasons in writing for such extension. If inquiry by the Board for petty offences
remains inconclusive even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated.
However that for serious or heinous offences, if the Board requires further extension of time for
completion of inquiry, the same is to be obtained from the Chief Judicial Magistrate or, the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be.

PROCEDURE OF INQUIRY AND TRIAL :

 Cases of petty offence, shall be disposed of by the Board through summary

proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973.

Summary trial is the name given to trials where cases are disposed of speedily and the
procedures are simplified and the recording of such trials are done summarily. In a summary trial
only, small offences are tried and complicated cases are reserved for summons or warrant trials.
The main purpose of summary trials is to expeditiously dispose of cases as the caseload on the
judiciary is immense and continues to grow. Summary trials also seek to uphold the legal maxim,
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” Summary trials allow for the people to procure justice even
for small offences that may otherwise have taken years to complete legal proceedings. Legal
provisions for Summary trials are provided for under Sections 260-265 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Sections 261 and 262 provide the type of cases that can be heard by first class and second class
Magistrates respectively.
Section 262 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a summary trial will follow the same
procedure as a summons trial which is much less formal.
In summary trials, a convict cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of time longer
than 3 months.

 Inquiry of serious offences shall be disposed of by the Board, by following the

procedure, for trial in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 204 (1) in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1. If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient

ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be—
 (a) A summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) A warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for
causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such
Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having
jurisdiction.

2. No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under Sub-Section (1) until a
list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

3. In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant

issued under Sub-Section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

4. When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable,
no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a
reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.

5. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.

 inquiry of heinous offences,— (i) for child below the age of sixteen years as on the date
of commission of an offence shall be disposed of by the Board under clause (ii) for child
above the age of sixteen years as on the date of commission of an offence shall be dealt
with in the manner prescribed under section 15.

 CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE OF NIRBHYA'S CASE

 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 classifies offences. A ‘heinous offence’ is offence with
minimum punishment of seven years of imprisonment or more.

 A ‘serious offence’ is offence with three to seven years of imprisonment and

‘
 ‘Petty offence’ is with a less than three year imprisonment.

 It treats all the children below 18 years equally

 SPECIAL TREATMENT OF JUVENILES

Juveniles in conflict with law are subject to the same substantive law as are adult criminals, but
their treatment is different. The juvenile justice system focuses on future welfare of the juvenile
rather than stressing on punishment for past misdemeanours. As reformation and rehabilitation is
the basic intent of the juvenile justice system, on being satisfied, after inquiry, that a juvenile in
conflict with law has committed an offence, the JJB is required to pass orders that adhere to the
spirit of juvenile legislation. Majority of the juvenile adjudged delinquent by JJBs are released
on probation to the care of a parent or guardian. Release of a juvenile on probation of good
conduct allows him to serve his sentence in family setting, sometimes under the supervision of
the P.O.

It has been internationally documented that incarceration of a juvenile in a detention facility

should be resorted to only in exceptional cases and for a minimal period. It is only in the absence
of parents or guardian, or when the parent or guardian are not found fit to be given the care of the
juvenile, or when non-institutional modes of disposition could cause physical or psychological
danger to the juvenile, that the juvenile should be institutionalized. 4 Any organization that has a
suitable programme and is willing to take responsibility of the juvenile may be given the charge
of a juvenile if the JJB believes that such programme will aid in the rehabilitation of the
juvenile.5 It is only in rare cases that a juvenile may be confined in a place of safety instead of a
Special Home. This rare case is a situation where the juvenile has attained the age of 16 years
and the offence committed is of a serious nature or the juvenile’s conduct is improper. 6 It must
also be noted that not every juvenile who has committed murder or rape is to be kept in a place
of safety. Incarceration in a place of safety should be ordered only if it would be dangerous to
keep the juvenile with other juveniles because of the peculiar nature of the offence committed or
the behaviour of the juvenile.

Further, any order passed by the JJB may be challenged in appeal before the Sessions Court
within thirty days of the passing of the order.7

4
Clause 46 of the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
5
Section 2(h) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
6
Section 16 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
7
Section 52 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Sentencing juvenile offenders to death is prohibited by international law. Article 37 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “State parties shall ensure that: Neither capital
punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences
committed by persons below the age of eighteen years of age.”

Differential treatment to delinquent children is not new. The Apprentices Act, 1850 had provided
apprenticeship for children between the age of 10 to 18 years convicted of petty offences.
Children were recognised as a special group in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, though the rationale
for differential lay in the concept of mens rea considered necessary for commission of a crime.
Special provisions for trial by children court and release on probation were made in the Cr.P.C,
1898 while the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 provided for sending children to reformatory in
lieu of imprisonment in jail. Whipping was preferred to-imprisonmcnt as whipping/stripes was
seen as a measure of school discipline not disrupting association with parents. Only if some
imprisonment, (irrespective of the period), was considered necessary, the child could be ordered
in lieu, to be sent to a reformatory school for 3 to 7 years but not exceeding the time when she/he
ceased to be a youthful offender. Even a month's imprisonment in jail was considered to be bad
for the child and instead she/he was sent to the reformatory for 4/5 years which was considered
to be in her/his interest. The magistrates, at times were found to extend the period of
imprisonment or award imprisonment so that a child could be sent to a place where she/he would
benefit it by some training programme.
Bibliography
BOOKS -:

Law lexicon by Ramanth Iyer

Black's Law Dictionary
Criminal Procedure by C.K. Takwani
The Code Of Criminal Procedure by Ratan Lal and Dheerajlal

WEBSITES -:

www.scconline.com

www.indiankanoon.com

ARTICLES -:

United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile delinquents: Need of care and protection

ACT & REGULATIONS -:

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015