Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 16.6.2025 vs State Of H.P on 20 June, 2025
2025:HHC:18953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 262 of 2025
Reserved on: 16.6.2025
Date of Decision: 20.6.2025.
'AK' ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
Additional Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition against
the judgment dated 13.3.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Chamba, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner (Juvenile
before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the orders
dated 27.8.2024 and 26.10.2024, passed by learned Principal
Magistrate (Juvenile Justice Board), Chamba (learned Trial Court)
were upheld.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:18953
2. It has been asserted that an FIR No. 80 of 2024 dated
24.6.2024 was registered against the petitioner and the co-
accused in Police Station, Chowari, District Chamba, HP for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 147,
149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner filed a
bail petition before the learned Principal Judge (Juvenile Justice
Board), Chamba, but it was dismissed vide order dated
26.10.2024. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned
Sessions Judge, Chamba; however, the same was dismissed on
13.3.2025. The petitioner has been kept in the observation home
for more than one and a half years. The charge sheet has been
filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Chamba, which is pending
adjudication. The bail petition was dismissed on the ground that
there is resentment in the area and there is physical and
psychological danger to the petitioner. The contents of the FIR
show that the petitioner had tried to save the victim and
sustained injuries in the incident. The real culprits are behind the
bars. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed
and the judgments passed by the learned Courts below be set
aside.
3
2025:HHC:18953
3. The police filed a status report asserting that the
informant, Vivek, along with Nikhil, Rajeev Kumar and Bunty,
had gone to Chowari in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-
63B-1776 on 23.6.2024. They were going towards the Shukla
Petrol Pump when two motorcycles, each carrying three riders,
came to the spot. The riders started abusing the informant party.
Informant and other persons requested the motorcyclists not to
abuse them; however, the motorcyclists started beating the
informant party. When the informant party tried to board their
vehicle, Anku inflicted injuries on the head of Rajiv and Bunty.
The informant party boarded the vehicle, but Anku inflicted the
stone blow, due to which the vehicle’s glass was damaged. Anku,
Atul, Vishal, Vinay and the juvenile had given beatings to the
informant party. The informant party reached Lahru and
informed Bholu @ Vijay. Bholu @ Vijay told the informant party
that the assailants were local and he would get the matter settled.
Bholu @ Vijay called the assailants, who called the assailants to
the Jatrun rain shelter. Informant, Nikhil, Rajiv, Bholu @ Vijay,
Kanav and Sunny went to the rain shelter. The informant party
started talking to Anku, Atul, Vishal, Vinay and the petitioner, but
they got infuriated. They slapped the informant, Rajiv, and Nikhil.
4
2025:HHC:18953
Anku took out a knife and inflicted a blow on the left chest of
Nikhil. Nikhil shouted, and Anku moved the knife. Bholu @ Vijay,
Vinay and the petitioner tried to stop Anku. They also sustained
injuries. Nikhil was taken to the Nurpur hospital, and he
succumbed to his injuries. The police conducted the investigation.
The petitioner was found to be a juvenile. He was sent to the
Observation Home, Una. A charge sheet was filed before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Chamba. The matter is listed for the report
of the Psychiatrist on 28.5.2025. The petitioner can intimidate the
witnesses, and his release would affect the law and order
adversely. Hence, the status report.
4. I have heard Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
5. Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely
implicated. The status report shows that the petitioner had tried
to save the victim. He had tried to snatch the knife from Anku.
Therefore, the petitioner is prima facie not involved in the
commission of the crime. The learned Courts below rejected his
5
2025:HHC:18953
bail petition on the ground that his release is likely to adversely
affect his physical and mental well-being, which is not correct
because the villages of the parties are located at a distance from
each other. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be
allowed, the orders passed by learned Courts below be set aside,
and the petitioner be released on bail.
6. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner
and the co-accused had given beatings to the informant party,
which showed his common intention. He is involved in a heinous
offence, and his release would cause danger to himself. Therefore,
he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
8. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under: –
“12. Bail to a person who is a child alleged to be in conflict
with the 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 1974) or in any other law for
the time being in force, be released on bail with or without
6
2025:HHC:18953surety 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 a 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 the law is unable to fulfil
the conditions of a bail order within seven days of the bail
order, such child shall be produced before the Board for
modification of the conditions of bail.”
9. 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
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
7
2025:HHC:18953
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 Vs. State of H.P. 2024 STPL 10023 HP 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 of
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
8
2025:HHC:18953Court 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 the 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.
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 the proviso came to be specifically dealt with and
9
2025:HHC:18953
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
thereunder. 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 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
10
2025:HHC:18953
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,
shall 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
11
2025:HHC:18953guess 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 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, the
aforesaid report also becomes handy while considering the
prayer made on behalf of the CCL for bail under Section 12.
12
2025:HHC:18953
10. Allahabad High Court also held in X Vs. State of U.P. and
another MANU/UP/1378/2023 that where the DPO report does not
disclose that the release of CCL would bring 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 into 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 coordinate 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 the
case of the present revisionist is also covered with the ratio
of the judgment aforesaid.”
11. A similar view was taken by the 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:
13
2025:HHC:18953
“9. Provisions of Section 12 of “J.J. Act, 2015” manifest that
ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under an obligation
to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety. The
juvenile shall not be released in certain circumstances, as
the latter part of the section also uses the word shall, im-
posing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the re-
lease of the juvenile by the J.J. Board. If there are any rea-
sonable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely
to bring him into association with any known criminal; (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 legisla-
ture is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the na-
ture or gravity of the offence alleged to have been commit-
ted 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 association
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 offence is not a relevant
consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juve-
nile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three
contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of “J.J. Act,
2015” is available.
11. In the case of Narayan Sharma v. State of M.P., ILR 2012
MP 796, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while consider-
ing the provision of 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
an exception to the rule of bail in section 12 of the Act
itself. There must be some mechanism with the Juvenile
Justice Board to gather material and form an opinion as
to whether the juvenile needs to be denied bail by bring-
14
2025:HHC:18953
ing 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 and 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 danger of the Board may obtain a report
from the Probation Officer attached to the Board re-
garding antecedents and circumstances attended to the
juvenile, both pre and post crime and it is only there-
after the Board or the Court should crystallize its opin-
ion 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 man-
date of law that the juvenile has to be released on bail,
except only in those cases where the case falls in one or
the other exception engrafted by the legislature in Sec-
tion 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 legis-
lation aimed at to make available the benefit of the Act
to the neglected or delinquent juveniles. It is settled law
that the interpretation of the statute of beneficial legis-
lation must be to advance the cause of legislation to the
benefit for whom it is made and not to frustrate the in-
tendment of the legislation.”
13. Further, it has been observed in Sanjay Chaurasia 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 prosecu-
tion, but in the present case, no such ground for believ-
ing any of the above mentioned exception has been
brought by the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice
15
2025:HHC:18953Board and Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dis-
missed the appeal only on the presumption that due to
commission of this offence, the father and other rela-
tives 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 presump-
tion, 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 the seriousness of the
crime. The only exception to the grant of bail to a child in
conflict with the law is the reasonable ground for believing
that release would bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psy-
chological danger, or his release would defeat the ends of
justice.
12. Karnataka High Court also took a similar view in
Manoj Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/1722/2023 and observed as
under: –
“13. In view of Section 13 (1)(ii) of the JJ Act, 2015, no
sooner is CCWL apprehended and produced before the JJ
Board, 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 an enquiry to be done by the Board while
passing orders in relation to such a child as it deems fit
under Sections 17 and 18 of the JJ Act. Rule 10 envisages
16
2025:HHC:18953
post-production processes by the Board, and the Social
Investigation Report for children in conflict with the 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 a 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 Organisation.
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 a juvenile. A juvenile 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:
17
2025:HHC:18953
“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 reasonable
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
18
2025:HHC:18953
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 an 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 parent and is
poorly attached to family members. School history reveals
that he is a dropout 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 are 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.
13. Learned Principal Magistrate (JJB) held that the
juvenile was involved in the commission of a heinous offence.
There is a physical and psychological danger to the life of the
juvenile. Learned Sessions Judge held that the juvenile was
involved in a heinous crime. There is resentment in the locality,
and the life of the juvenile was in danger.
14. It appears from the orders that both the learned
Courts below were swayed by the heinous nature of the crime
19
2025:HHC:18953
while denying bail to the juvenile. They also held that there was
resentment in the area, but the status report is silent regarding
the threat to the well-being of the juvenile. It was stated that the
villages of the parties are located adjacent to each other; however,
the status report shows that the distance between the house of
the petitioner and the deceased is about 20 kilometres. Therefore,
the apprehension that there is a danger to the petitioner’s life is
not supported by the status report.
15. Consequently, in view of the above, the present
petition is allowed, impugned orders 27.8.2024 and 26.10.2024
are quashed and set aside, and the juvenile in conflict with law 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
20
2025:HHC:18953encouraged to do besides other constructive activities, and
not 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 September
2024, 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
20th June, 2025
(Chander)