Juvenile Justice Board Imposes Fine on SP for Withholding CCTV Footage

The Juvenile Justice Board of Jehanabad has imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on Superintendent of Police Arvind Pratap Singh, a 2018 batch IPS officer who joined Jehanabad in January this year. This decision stems from the SP's failure to provide crucial CCTV footage from the Okri police station related to a juvenile case, despite it being over two months since the request was made. The Board has mandated that the fine be deposited into the District Legal Services Authority's victim compensation fund by September 30, 2024. In the event of non-compliance, the District Magistrate has been instructed to withdraw the amount from the SP's account by October 19.

The case revolves around the handling of a juvenile accused, known as a Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL), where serious lapses have been noted in the police response. The Board expressed frustration that the necessary CCTV footage, which could potentially clarify the circumstances surrounding the incident, has not been made available. The SP's negligence has delayed legal proceedings and jeopardized the juvenile's rights.

The Board also noted that no First Information Report (FIR) had been filed against the police officers involved—specifically the station chief, child welfare officer, and investigation officer—under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Furthermore, the mobile call detail records (CDR) of the involved officers were found to be incomplete, another sign of disregard for the Board's orders.

In its 11-page order, the Board emphasized the serious implications of this case, stating that it involves a significant violation of the human rights, fundamental rights, and constitutional rights of the juvenile.

The judge, Nivedita Kumari, who has been part of the judiciary since 2018, criticized the SP's reply to the Board, which appeared more like a series of lectures rather than a substantive response. The SP questioned the Board's working, claiming it should have determined the age of the CICL within 60 days. However, the judge pointed out that the SP lacks a fundamental understanding of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Bihar JJ Rules, which govern such cases. According to the judge, determining the age of the alleged CICL cannot be based solely on a photocopy of the admission register.