Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 01.03.2025 vs State Of H.P on 12 March, 2025
2025:HHC:5735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 612 of 2024
Reserved on: 01.03.2025
Date of Decision: 12.03.2025.
Ak (minor) ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : M/s Servedaman Rathore and
Vipin Bhatia, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment
dated 4.12.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the
appeal filed by the child in conflict with law (CCL) was
dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:5735
manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for
convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
revision are that the police received information that the dead
body of a female was lying in an approach road rain shelter. The
police went to the spot and found the dead body of a woman. A
dupatta was tied around her neck. The police conducted the
investigation and found that the CCL and other co-accused had
stopped near the approach road rain shelter. The deceased also
came to the rain shelter. The CCL and other co-accused had
raped the deceased. Her head hit something in the rain shelter.
They attempted to take the woman to the jungle but her dupatta
got entangled in her neck and she died on the spot. CCL and co-
accused found ₹3560/- in her purse and distributed the money
amongst themselves. The police arrested CCL and the co-
accused. The police effected the recovery of various articles at
the instance of the CCL and the co-accused. As per the report of
the postmortem examination, Satya Devi had died due to
ligature strangulation. The petitioner was found to be born on
21.12.2007. He had joined other accused in the gang rape and
3
2025:HHC:5735
murder of the deceased. The charge sheet was filed before the
Court.
3. The CCL filed an application seeking bail. Learned
Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board held that the gravity of
the offence shows the circumstances in which the offence was
committed. The parents of the CCL had left him in the company
of the co-accused, and in case of his release on protective
custody, he would be exposed to the criminals as had occurred in
the past. Hence the bail petition was dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned
Principal Judge, JJB, the CCL filed an appeal, which was decided
by the learned Sessions Judge. It was held that in case of release
of the CCL, he would be exposed to moral danger and come in
contact with the known criminals. There was no infirmity in the
order passed by learned Principal Magistrate, JJB. Hence, the
appeal was dismissed.
5. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the
learned Courts below, the CCL has filed the present revision
asserting that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the
law in its proper perspective. The FIR was lodged on false and
4
2025:HHC:5735
bogus facts. The CCL was not required in the offence. No fruitful
purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. No
recovery is to be effected from the CCL and a false case was
planted against the CCL by the police. The provisions of Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice Act were not properly appreciated.
There was no reasonable ground to believe that CCL was likely to
come into association with any known criminal or he would be
exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned
Courts below erred in not releasing the CCL on bail. CCL would
abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may
impose. Hence the petition.
6. I have heard M/s Servedaman Rathore and Vipin
Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender
Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
7. Mr Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in
dismissing the bail petition. There was no evidence that the CCL
was likely to come into contact with known criminals or he
would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger in
5
2025:HHC:5735
case of release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present
petition be allowed and the CCL be released on bail. He relied
upon the judgment of Manoj Vs. State of Karnataka,
MANU/KA/1722/2023, X Vs. State of U.P. and another
MANU/UP/1378/2023 and XYZ Vs. State of H.P. 2024 STPL 10023
HP in support of his submission.
8. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State, submitted that the CCL was
abandoned by his family members. He came in contact with the
known criminals and learned Courts below had rightly held that
releasing him on bail would expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger. Therefore, he prayed that the present
petition be dismissed.
9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
10. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice 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 offence, is apprehended or
detained by the police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
6
2025:HHC:57351974) 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
appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release
is likely to bring that person into association with any
known criminal or expose the said person to moral,
physical or psychological danger or the person’s release
would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall
record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances
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 in such
manner as may be prescribed until the person can be
brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-
section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending
him 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 conflict with law is unable to fulfil the
conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail
order, such child shall be produced before the Board for
modification of the conditions of bail.”
11. It is apparent from the bare perusal of Section that
CCL has to be released on bail with or without surety or has to be
placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or any fit
person notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The non-obstante clause shows that the
7
2025:HHC:5735
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act will override the provisions
of Cr.P.C. regarding the bail and the Court is bound to release the
person on bail or put him under the supervision of a Probation
Officer or the care of any fit person. The proviso reads that CCL
cannot be released if there are reasonable grounds to believe
that CCL is likely to associate with any known criminal or his
release shall expose him to moral, criminal or psychological
danger or would defeat the ends of justice. It was laid down by
this Court in XYZ (supra) that release can only be denied if the
Court or the Board is satisfied that the CCL would come into
contact with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral,
physical or psychological danger however, the reasons have to
be recorded. It was observed:-
“11. Since the proviso to Section 12 makes it mandatory
for the court to record a finding, especially when the
court proposes to send the CCL to observation Home, the
court while considering prayer, if any, under Section 12
cannot merely on the basis of the gravity of offence
alleged to have been committed by the CCL, can presume
that in the event of his/her being enlarged on bail, he may
indulge in these activities again, rather sufficient reason
is required to be recorded in the order which
compels/persuades the court to send the CCL to an
observation home.
12. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the
judgment dated 14.8.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled Juvenile in Conflict with Law V v. State
8
2025:HHC:5735of Rajasthan and Anr., passed in Criminal Appeal (arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9566 /2024),
wherein, while interpreting Section 12 of the Juvenile Act,
especially proviso to the aforesaid provision of law,
Hon’ble Apex Court held that specific finding is required
to be recorded in context of proviso to subsection 1 of
Section 12 of the Act by the court concerned, especially
when it proposes to send the accused to the observation
home. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced herein below:
“6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of
Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with the law has to
be necessarily released on bail with or without
surety or placed under the supervision of a
probation officer or under the care of any fit person
unless proviso is applicable.
7. We have perused all the orders passed earlier by
the JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and
especially the order dated 11th December 2023
passed by the JJ Board. There is no finding recorded
that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is
applicable to the facts of the case. Without
recording the said finding, bail could not have been
denied to a juvenile in conflict with the law.
8. Our attention is invited to the Psychological
Assessment Report of the Juvenile. The report
records that the juvenile does not belong to the
high-risk category and against the column “worry
list of the child” it is mentioned that there was “no
worry”. The report is signed by a qualified Clinical
Psychologist.
9. Though none of the courts at no stage have
recorded a finding that in the facts of the case, the
proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 was
applicable, the juvenile in conflict with the law has
been denied bail for the last one year.
9
2025:HHC:5735
10. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.”
13. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in X (minor) v. State
of U.P. and Anr., wherein the word “Known Criminal”
used in proviso came to be specifically dealt with and
elaborated. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as
under:
14. The term ‘known criminal’ has not been defined
in “the Juvenile Justice Act” or the Rules framed
there under. It is a well-settled rule of
interpretation that in the absence of any statutory
definition of any term used in any particular statute
the same must be assigned meaning as in
commonly understood in the context of such
statute as held by the Supreme Court in Appasaheb
v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 in para 11 as
under: (SCC p. 726 para 11)
“11……It is a well-settled principle of
interpretation of the statute that if the Act is
passed with reference to a particular trade,
business or transaction and words are used
which everybody conversant with that trade,
business or transaction knows or
understands to have a particular meaning in
it, then the words are to be construed as
having that particular meaning. [See: Union
of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC
413: AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Chemical and Fibers
of India v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 664: AIR
1997 SC 558]…
15. In Nand Kishore (in JC) v. State (2006) 4 RCR (Cri.)
754, Delhi High Court, while considering the first
condition of proviso of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice
Act, observed that “as regards the first exception,
before it can be invoked to deny bail to a juvenile
there must be a reasonable ground for believing
10
2025:HHC:5735
that his release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal. The
expression ‘known criminal’ is not without
significance when the liberty of a juvenile is sought
to be curtailed by employing the exception, the
exception must be construed strictly. Therefore,
before this exception is invoked, the prosecution
must identify the ‘known criminal’, and then the
court must have reasonable grounds to believe that
the juvenile if released would associate with this
‘known criminal’. It cannot be generally observed
that the release of the juvenile would bring him into
association with criminals without identifying the
criminals and without returning a prima facie
finding with regard to the nexus between the
juvenile and such criminals.
16. A similar view has been taken in Manmohan
Singh v. State of Punjab, PLR (2004) 136 P & H 497
wherein, it was observed as under:
“7….The reasonable grounds for believing
that his release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice, should be
based upon some material/evidence available
on the record. It is not a matter of subjective
satisfaction but while declining bail to the
juvenile on the said ground, there must be an
objective assessment of the reasonable
grounds that the release of the juvenile is
likely to bring him in association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice…
8. In Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra) it has been
held by the Allahabad High Court that every
juvenile whatever offence he is charged with,
11
2025:HHC:5735shall be released on bail but he may, however,
be refused bail if there appears reasonable
ground for believing that the release is likely
to bring him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice and that the
existence of such ground should not be mere
guess work of court but it should be
substantiated by some evidence on record.”
14. Careful perusal of aforesaid law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Allahabad High Court
clearly suggests that the reasonable grounds for believing
that release of CCL is likely to bring him into association
with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his release would
defeat the ends of justice, should be based upon some
material evidence available on the record. It is not a
matter of subjective satisfaction but while denying bail to
the juvenile on the said ground, there must be an
objective assessment of the reasonable grounds that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring him in association
with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his release would
defeat the ends of justice. “Reason to believe” excludes
mere suspicion, meaning thereby, mere registration of a
case under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO
Act may not be sufficient for the court to arrive at a
conclusion that in the event of his being enlarged on bail,
CCL may come in contact of the known criminal or
indulge in these activities again. Section 13 (1) (ii) of the
Act, specifically provides for a report of a probation
officer, who is otherwise under obligation to submit a
report to the I.O. within two weeks, with regard to the
social behaviour of the child under the aforesaid act. The
social investigation report, which is defined in Rule 2 XVII
of the Act, clearly provides detailed information
pertaining to the circumstances of the child, the situation
12
2025:HHC:5735
of the child on economic, social, psycho-social and other
relevant factors, and the recommendation thereon. Afore
report becomes important for the inquiry to be done by
the Board while passing such orders in relation to such a
child as it deems fit under Sections 17 and 18 of this Act.
Similarly, aforesaid report also becomes handy while
considering prayer made on behalf of the CCL for bail
under Section 12.
12. Allahabad High Court also held in X Vs. State of U.P.
and another MANU/UP/1378/2023 held that where the DPO report
does not disclose that the release of CCL would bering him in
association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger, he is to be released on bail. It
was observed:-
“9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the record, it transpires that admittedly,
the revisionist was 16 years 8 months and 7 days at the
date of the incident and that is evident from the
impugned order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, it is
established that the revisionist is a juvenile. This Court
has noticed the fact that the DPO report does not disclose
the fact that the release of the revisionist shall bring him
in association with any unknown criminal or expose the
revisionist to moral, physical or psychological danger.
Further, so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the
FIR has been lodged by the grandmother of the revisionist
and she is not an eyewitness. The other witnesses are also
not eyewitnesses in the instant matter and only on a
hearsay basis, the bail of the revisionist has been rejected.
10. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Juvenile ‘X’ through his father in Criminal Revision No. 2318
of 2021 has also settled the law and this Court finds that
13
2025:HHC:5735the case of the present revisionist is also covered with the
ratio of the judgment aforesaid.”
13. A similar view was taken by Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Mahesh Rao v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 6897:
ILR 2023 MP 1661 wherein it was observed at page 1664:
“9. Provisions of Section 12 of “J.J. Act, 2015” manifest
that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obliga-
tion to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety.
The juvenile shall not be released in certain circum-
stances as the latter part of the section also uses the word
shall imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting
the release of the juvenile by the J.J. Board. If there are any
reasonable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is
likely to bring him into association with any known crim-
inal; (b) that release is likely to expose him to moral,
physical, or psychological danger and (c) that release of
the juvenile is in conflict with law and would defeat the
ends of justice.
10. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of
“J.J. Act, 2015“, it appears that the intention of the legis-
lature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the
nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been com-
mitted by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in
such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into an asso-
ciation of any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical, or psychological danger, or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the of-
fence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail
to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of
bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Sec-
tion 12(1) of “J.J. Act, 2015” is available.
11. In case of Narayan Sharma v. State of M.P., ILR 2012 MP
796 a Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering
14
2025:HHC:5735the provision of the Section 12 of the Act observed as un-
der:
“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 facie 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 Jus-
tice Board 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 Sec-
tion 12. The opinion to be formed by the Board, by no
means, can be subjective and has to be objective. Ei-
ther the prosecution should place some prima facie
material before the Board or the Court to show that re-
lease of a juvenile on bail may expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger of the Board may ob-
tain a report from the Probation Officer attached to the
Board regarding antecedents and circumstances at-
tended to the juvenile, both pre and post crime and it is
only thereafter the Board or the Court should crystal-
lize its opinion regarding release or non release of the
juvenile on bail, though involved in a heinous crime. 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 re-
leased on bail, except only in those cases where the
case fall in one or the other exception engrafted by the
legislature in Section 12 itself.”
12. It has been observed in Pratap Singh v. State of Jhark-
hand, 2005 SCC (Cri) 742, that:
“the whole object of the Act is to provide for the care,
protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation
of neglected delinquent juveniles. It is a beneficial leg-
islation aimed at to make available the benefit of the
Act to the neglected or delinquent juveniles. It is set-
tled law that the interpretation of the statute of bene-
ficial legislation must be to advance the cause of legis-
15
2025:HHC:5735
lation to the benefit for whom it is made and not to
frustrate the intendment of the legislation.”
13. Further it has been observed in Sanjay Chaura-
sia v. State of U.P., (2006) 55 ACC 480 that:
“10. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable
grounds for believing above mentioned exceptions
must be brought before the Court concerned by the
prosecution but in the present case, no such ground
for believing any of the above mentioned exception
has been brought by the prosecution before the Juve-
nile Justice Board and Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal only on the presumption
that due to commission of this offence, the father and
other relatives of other kidnapped boy had developed
enmity with the revisionist, that is why in case of his
release, the physical and mental life of the revisionist
will be in danger 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 only on the basis of
the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board has refused
the bail of the revisionist which is in the present case
is unjustified and against the spirit of the Act.”
14. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the
bail application of a child in conflict with the law cannot
be rejected merely on the ground of seriousness of the
crime. The only exception to grant of bail to a child in
conflict with the law is the reasonable ground for believ-
ing that release would bring him into association with
any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends
of justice.
14. Karnataka High Court also took a similar view in
Manoj (supra) and observed as under: –
“13. In view of Section 13 (1)(ii) of the JJ Act, 2015, no
sooner CCWL is apprehended and produced before the JJ
16
2025:HHC:5735Board, the Probation Officer has to be informed. The JJ
Board has to call for a Social Investigation Report which
has been defined in Rule 2 (xvii) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). The said report
becomes vital for enquiry to be done by the Board while
passing orders in relation to such child as it deems fit
under Sections 17 and 18 of the JJ Act. Rule 10 envisages
post-production processes by the Board and the Social
Investigation Report for children in conflict with law has
to be secured in Form No. 6.
14. In the present case, it appears from the records that
the JJ Board has called for the report from the Dharwad
Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Belagavi
Road, Dharwad, with regard to the mental condition of all
CCWLs. The learned High Court Government Pleader has
produced the certified copy of the report submitted by
DIMHANS. The report would reveal that apart from the
medical condition of CCWL, the family background and
other requirements have been collected.
However, in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, a Social
Investigation Report for children in conflict with the law
has to be secured in Form No. 6 from the Probation
Officer/Voluntary/Non-governmental Organization.
15. Learned counsel for appellant in support of his
contention that JJ Board was under legal obligation to
secure Social Investigation Report from the Probation
Officer and the said report has to be taken into
consideration while deciding the bail application filed
under Section 12 of the JJ Act, relied on the latest
judgment of Allahabad High Court in XXX Juvenile Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh And Another disposed of on 25.04.2023.
The Social Information Report of the Probation Officer
has to be the basis for the JJ Board while deciding the bail
application or to pass any order keeping in mind the
welfare and well-being of the child. It has been further
held that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant
consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A
17
2025:HHC:5735juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the
three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the JJ
Act, 2015 is available. The Social Investigation Report
from the Probation Officer has to be obtained within the
time slot fixed in terms of Section 13 (1) of the JJ Act in
Form No. 6. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in
paragraph 20 of its judgment has held as follows:
“20. ‘Form-6′ of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, contains
a detailed proforma of the social investigation
report. The report has three parts; the first part
requires the Probation Officer to give the data or
information regarding the close relatives in the
family, delinquency records of the family, social
and economic status, ethical code of the family,
attitude towards religion, the relationship amongst
the family members, the relationship with the
parents, living conditions, etc. Thereafter, the
report requires the Probation Officer to provide the
child’s history regarding his mental condition,
physical condition, habits, interests, personality
traits, neighbourhood, neighbours’ report, school,
employment, if any, friends, the child being subject
to any form of abuse, circumstances of
apprehension of the child, mental condition of the
child. The most important part of the report is the
third part i.e., the result of inquiry where the
Probation Officer is required to inform the Board
about the emotional factors, physical condition,
intelligence, social and economic factors,
suggestive cause of the problems, analysis of the
case including reasons/contributing factors for the
offence, opinion of experts consulted and
recommendation regarding rehabilitation by the
Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer. It is
incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice Board to take
into consideration the social investigation report
and make an objective assessment on the
18
2025:HHC:5735reasonable grounds for rejecting the bail
application of the juvenile.”
16. Keeping in mind the above referred legal requirement
for deciding the bail application of CCWL in terms of
Section 12 of the JJ Act, the Social Assessment Report
obtained by the JJ Board from DIMHANS, Dharwad, as
produced by the learned Government Pleader is perused
though not in prescribed Form No. 6 by the Probation
Officer. The report with reference to CCWL-4 goes to
show that in the first part regarding mental and physical
capacity to commit the alleged offence, it is reported that
neglect/poor supervision by the family members.
Intellectual disability is reported as IQ-104 average
intelligence. In the second part-family history, it is
reported that the family belongs to middle socio-
economic status, the father committed suicide, single
parenting and is poorly attached to family members.
School history reveals that he is a dropped-out student of
I PUC and has no history of child labour. Peer
relationships-negative peer influences, spend more time
with peer groups, hence, are more vulnerable to peer
influences. Regarding abuse and trauma history is
suggestive of abuse and trauma. In the third part, the
child’s knowledge of the consequences of committing the
alleged offence, it is reported that the child’s
understanding of social/interpersonal and legal
consequences of committing the offence is reported to be
poor and other observations is concealing information
related to the incident. The recommendations are family
counselling, individual therapy-life style
modification/life skills training. Long term follow up with
mental health professionals, vocational
rehabilitation/training.
15. In the present case, the order of the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, shows that the social
background report was placed before the Board in which it was
19
2025:HHC:5735
mentioned that the CCL was regular in attending the school. He
was suffering from an ailment of kidney which made his parents
to be overprotective for him. This report nowhere reads that the
CCL was abandoned by his family as was held by the learned
Courts below. It shows that the parents were overprotective of
CCL in view of his ailment of the kidney. Hence, the reasons
recorded by learned Courts below are not supported by the social
background report.
16. Consequently, in view of the above, the present
petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 4.12.2013 and
6.11.2023 are quashed and set aside, and CCL is ordered to be
enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that
upon release on bail the CCL will not be permitted to go
into contact or association with any known criminal or
allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or
psychological danger and further that the Natural
Guardian/father will ensure that the juvenile will not
repeat the offence.
(ii) The natural guardian/father will further furnish an
undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his
study at the appropriate level which he would be
encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and
20
2025:HHC:5735not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and
excessive recreational pursuits.
(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the
Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar
month commencing with the first Monday of April, 2025,
and if, during any calendar month, the first Monday falls
on a holiday, then on the following working day.
(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the
activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social
investigation report that would be submitted to the
concerned Juvenile Justice Board, on such a periodical
basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
12th March, 2025
(Chander)