Child In Conflict vs State Of Haryana

Aaradhna Sawhneyy, J

This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 1022 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘J.J. Act’) against the appeal judgment dated 3.3.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 20225, arising out of FIR No. 773 dated 29.9.2025 of Police Station Shahabad, under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 126(2), 118(1) and 118(2) off BNS and Section 25 of Armms Act, whereby appeal preferrred against thhe order dated 18.2.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kurukshetra (in shhort ‘JJ Board’), was dismissed and order rejecting the bail application of the ‘child in conflict with the law’, was affirmed.

Relevant facts as emerging from the documents on record be noticed heereinbelow:

Prince, son of Jai Singh, resident of village Sharifgarh, (Pollice Station Shhahabad, Kurukshetra), a driver by profession, set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint pointing therein that about a year ago, he had had an altercation with Chand, son of Vicky, who had assaulted his (c) brother Swarnjeet Singh. This dispute was amicably settled in Panchayyat. On 26.9.2024, he left his house on mootorcycle bearing registration No. HR78A-7181, to fetch medicine from thee doctor. On his way back home, when he reached near langar hall of Gurrudwara Sahib street at about 8.40 PM, Kommal, son of Manga, suddenly came in front of his motorcycle and blocked thhe way. Reluctantly, he (c) had to stop the vehicle, when suddeenly Chand soon of Vicky, Mandeep alias Kalu son of Charanjit Singh allias Channa and Karan son of Dhanni, all reesidents of village Sharifgarh, who were standing on the side of the street, came out on the road with knivess in their handds. Before he (c) could react, Chhand stabbed him on the left sidee of neck, Manndeep alias Kalu son of Charanjit Singh alias Channa stabbed him in his stommach and Karan (petitioner) stabbed him (c) on the back side of his waist as also on his left arm. Komal ettc. also gave multiple knife blows. Even wheen he (c) fell down, the assailannts did not stop and continued with the assault. On hearing his cries of painn, Sajjan son of Baldev Singh, who was inciddentally crossing the area, rushed up to him, on seeing whoom, Komal etcc. ran away. Arrangements were made and he was rushed to CHC, Shahabadd, where first-aid was provided but on seeing his delicate mediical condition, the treating Doctor referred hiim to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. However, the family members got hiim admitted to Metro Hospiital, Kurukshetra. He lost his consciousness on 26.9.2024 and regained the saame partially on 28.9.2024.

Primarily with this backddrop, complainant-injured Prince requested the police officials to catch hold of all those who had brutaally assaulted him as also to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings agaiinst them. On the basis of said complaint and medico legal report, a formal case vide FIR No.773 dated 29.9.2025 was reggistered under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 3((5), 126(2), 118(1) and 118(2) of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act at Police Station Shahabad, District Kuruukshetra.

A perusal of MLR indicated that complainant had suffered as many as 12 injuries on his person, all with sharp edged weapon. Somee of the injuries were declared as ‘Grievous’ whereas one suffered on the neck was declaared as ‘Dangerous to life’.

‘Child in conflict with law’ was arrested on 20.11.2024. Three injuries with sharp edged weapon (one on the back side of the waistt of complainaant and two on the left arm) werre attributed to him. After ‘childd in conflict with law’ was arrested, during questioning, he confessed to his involvemeent and got recovered ‘knife’ used by him in the commission of offence. Except one, all the others invvolved in the incident have been arrested. Investigations qua them are complete as challan has already been filed.

Admittedly, on the date of commission of offence, Juvenilee in conflict with law, was less than 18 years of age.

As noted above, the bail appplication of ‘Child in conflict with law’ was dismissed by the Principal Maagistrate, JJ Board on 26.11.20024. Against thhe said order, appeal filed by thhe ‘Child in conflict with law’ also came to be dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 17.12.20024. Another application moved by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by the Priincipal Magistrate, JJ Board on 18.2.2025. Similar was the fatee of the appeaal filed by him under Section 101 of the JJ Act, as the learned Additionaal Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide order dated 3.3.2025 dismissed the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the tiime of commission of offence, i.e., on 26.9.20024, Juvenile was less than 18 yeears of age (hhis date of birth being 6.10.2004). Thus, he falls within the definition of ‘Juvenile’, as defined under Section 2 Clause 35 of the JJ Act. Further, since he was arrested on 20.11.2024, he has been in Child Care Home, Madhuban. Moreover, there is nothing to show that if the juvenile is released on bail, his release is likely too bring him in association of any known criminal or expose to moral, physiical or psychological danger or that his release will defeat the ends of justice. It has been submitted by learned counsel that JJ Board as well as the appellate court have not propeerly appreciateed the facts of the case and havve passed the impugned orders in a cursory manner without considering the object of law enacted for the benefit of juvenille and also failed to take note of his clean past antecedents. The bail appllication was, thus, dismissed in routine mechanical mannner.

Continuinng further, learned counsel submmits that investigation in the pressent case is coomplete, challan has already been filed and completion of trial is likely to take long time, for out of 20 witnnesses, none has been examined till date. Thuus, as per learned counsel, furtheer incarceration of Juvenile in Chhild Care Homme, is not likely to serve any usefful purpose. Moreover, if extended the concession of bail, parents of the petitioner undertake to take care of him to the besst of their abilities and are also willing to give an undertaking that they wouuld ensure that he does not coome in association of any knoown criminal. With these submissions, prayer for allowing of petition has been made.

Per contra, learned State counsel accompanied by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and defended the impugned appellate judgmeent and order passed by the couurts below coontending that the present Juvvenile has committed a ‘Heinous offence’, as he along with his associates gave multiple stab wounds to the complainaant, who suffered as many as 12 injuries on various parts of his body. The act of Juvenile, who actively participated in the incident and gave three injuries with sharp edged weapon to complainant, shows his deprivatioon of mind. Further, the social investigation report of the petitioner, who has a negative reputation of being habitual alcoholic, most of whose friiends are of criminal background, was also considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, who, thus, righhtly dismissed the bail application. It has, thuus, been prayed that considering the role attribbuted to the petitioner, the gravity of the offence, criminal revission petition fiiled on behalf of the Juvenile, deserves dismissal.

Heard learned counsel foor the parties and perused the documents on record.

Undisputedly, at the time of commission of offence, petitioner was less than 18 years of age. Before considering the legal propriety of the orders passsed by the courts below, it wouuld be appropriate to go through the relevant provisions of JJ Act. Section 12 of JJ Act reads as under:-

“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offencee, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such persoon shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criiminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the releasee is likely to bring that person into association with any knoown criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or thee persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Booard shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumsstances that led to such a decision.

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home 1[or a place of safety, as the case may be] in such mannner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought beforee a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending himm to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

(4) When a child in confllict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order witthin seven days of the bail ordder, such child shall be producedd before the Board for modificattion of the conditions of bail.”

A careful reading of the aforresaid provision makes it clear that ordinarilyy, bail to a Juvenile is a rule, denial is exception. The Juvenile shall not be released on bail, if there are reasonnable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely to bring him into asssociation with any known criminnal;

(b) that reelease is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychologiical danger annd (c) that release of the juvenile is in conflict with law and would defeat the ends of justice. It is, thus, clear that gravity of the offence, per se, is not relevant consideration for declining the bail. Only if the aforementioned three contingencies are met with, a Juvenile can be dennied the concession of bail.

In Narayan Sharma v. Staate of MP, ILR (2012) MP 796, Madhya Pradesh High Court while considering the provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act observed as under:-

“In the opinion of this court, the Juvenile Justice Board may be justified in denying bail to a juvenile involved in a heinous crime only if there is material before it to form a prima faacie opinion on the aspects carved out as exception to rule of bail in section 12 of the Act itself. There must be some mechanism with the Juvenile Justice Boaard to gather material and form an opinion as to whether the juvenile need to be denied bail by bringing his case under the exceptions to bail engrafted in Section 12. The opinion to be formed by the Board, by no means, can be subjective annd has to be objective. Either the prosecution should place some prima facie material before the Board or the Court to show that release of a juvenile on bail may expose him to moral, physical or psychological dangerr of the Board may obtain a report from the Probation Offiicer attached to the Board regardding antecedents and circumstances attended to the juvenile, both pre and post crime and it is only thereafter the Board or the Court should crystallized its opinion regarding release or non release of the juvenile on bail, though involved in a heinous crimme. A reference to the statutory provisions governing bail to a juvenile contained in section 12 would show that there is a mandate of law that the juvenile has to be released on bail, exceptt only in those cases where the case fall in one or the other excepption engrafted by the legislaturee in section 12 itself.”

Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chaurasia v. Sttate of UP andd another, 2006 (55) SCC 480 held as under:-

“10. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable grounds for believing above mentionned xx exceptions must be brought before the court concerned by the prosecution but in the pressent case, no such ground for bellieving any of the above mentioned exception has been broughht by the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court. The appellate coourt dismissed the appeal only oh the presumption that due to commission of this offence, the father and other relatives of other kidnapped boy had devveloped enmity with the revisionnist, that is why in case of his releease, the physical and mental lifee of the revisionist will be In dannger and his release will defeat the ends of justice but substantial to this presumption no material has been brought before the appellate court and the same has not been discussed and onlyy on the basis of the presumptiion, Juvenile Justice Board has refused the bell of the revisionist which is In the present case is unjustified and against the sppirit of the Act."

In Karan v. State of MP in Crl. R. No. 5159/2018 decided on 14.01.20119 and Girdhar v. State of MP in Cr.R. No. 509/2021 decided on 17.03.20221, Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the bail applicationn of a child in conflict with the law cannot be rejected merely on the groundd of seriousness of the crime. The only exceeption to grant of bail to a childd in conflict with the law is the reasonable ground for believing that releease would briing him into association with any known criminal or expose himm to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, the role attributed to the petitioner is that being armed with sharp edged weapon,, he gave threee stab wounds to the complainannt (one on the back side of the waist and two on his left arm). One of the injuries attributed to the petitioner has been decllared as Grievous. Submission raised by learned counsel for the complainaant that the offence committed by the petitioner and his associaates falls undeer the category of ‘Heinous’ offence as described under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act, has not found favouur with the Court, for no minimum sentence has been prescribed under Section 307 IPC which provides maximum punishment of 7 years or more. ‘Heinous offence’, as per Section 2(33) of the Act includes the offence foor which the minimum punishment under the IPC or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment for 7 yearrs or more. In any case, petitioner has been in Child Care Home, Madhuban for the last approximately onee year. There is nothing on record to draw an inference that his conduct andd behaviour has been questionable. Social Invvestigation Report so referred to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuurukshetra in his order dated 3.3.2025 has not even been mentioned by the Staate in the status report. Moreoveer, out of 20 witnesses, none of the witnesses have been examined till date. Thus, the likelihood of completion of trial inn near future is quite remote. Further detention of the petitioner would not only be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including right to speedy triaal but would also be against the principle of “Bail is a general rule and incarceration is an exception” as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Datarram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances brought on record, this Court is of the opinion thhat the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner the granted concession of bail, subject to certain conditions include that one of his parents would furnish personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with two solvent local sureties of his near relatives, in the sum of Rs.50,0000/- each to the satisfaction of thee JJ Board. It is further made cllear that this concession has been granted subjject to the following:-

(i) During bail period, juvenile will remain under the supervision and control of hiis parents, who shall be responsiible for his maintenance, well beiing and other activities;

(ii) His parents shall unddertake that upon release on bail, juvenile will not be permittedd to go into contract or associattion with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that they will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence;

(iii) Juvenile will report to the Probation Officer on the evvery last date of the calendar monnth and Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly drraw up his social investigation reeport that would be submitted to the J.J. Board, on such a periodical basis as the J.J. Board may need it;

(iv) Juvenile’s parents shall also ensure of the appearancee of the Juvenile before JJ Boardd on all the dates fixed by it till the final disposal of the case pennding before it.

This criminal revision is allowed accordingly.