CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 248 CCL ‘L’ State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Act, 2015) learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal appellate Court’) registered under Sections 127(6) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 103(1), 238 and 61 of BNS were added and Section 127(6) of BNS was deleted later on) at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karna whereby an application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismissed. 2. petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the complainant. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Act, 2015) challenging the order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal appellate Court’) in case arising out o registered under Sections 127(6) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 103(1), 238 and 61 of BNS were added and Section 127(6) of BNS was deleted later on) at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karna whereby an application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had been dismissed. Adumbrated facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant Sohan Singh on the allegations that he was IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. petition has been filed under Section 102 of the Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the challenging the order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the in case arising out of FIR No. 696 dated 29.08.2024, registered under Sections 127(6) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 103(1), 238 and 61 of BNS were added and Section 127(6) of BNS was deleted later on) at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karna whereby an application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had Adumbrated facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complainant Sohan Singh on the allegations that he was -1- CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) 22.04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent under Section 102 of the (for short ‘the challenging the order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Court of (hereinafter referred to as ‘the f FIR No. 696 dated 29.08.2024, registered under Sections 127(6) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) (Sections 103(1), 238 and 61 of BNS were added and Section 127(6) of BNS was deleted later on) at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District Karnal, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail had Adumbrated facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complainant Sohan Singh on the allegations that he was MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) running a security agency in the name of the Alert Men Group Security Services. Two persons from his agency, namely @ Gullu, were posted as security guards in RA Internation victim Pawan was also working as Supervisor in the said rice mill. All three of them, i.e. Pawan, Sagar and Mann, were missing since 27.08.2024 and could not be found. On his complaint, initially a case under Section 127(6) of BNS was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the dead body of victim Pawan was recovered from a water tank situated in the premises of above said mill. Post inquest proceedings were conducted. opined to be head injury Gullu and Gurpreet @ Mann were arrested on 05.09.2024. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of victim Pawan and also took the names of the present petitioner and co Prince and Aman. Accused Aman and Sahil were also arrested subsequently. In their respective disclosure statements, they too took the name of the present petitioner. The petitioner was and he confessed about his involvement in the murder of the victim. Investigation/inquiry stands completed and final investigation report against the petitioner and co application for grant of regular bail before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal dated 21.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the learned appellate Court with similar prayer, which too had been dismissed, CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) running a security agency in the name of the Alert Men Group Security Services. Two persons from his agency, namely @ Gullu, were posted as security guards in RA Internation victim Pawan was also working as Supervisor in the said rice mill. All three of them, i.e. Pawan, Sagar and Mann, were missing since 27.08.2024 and could not be found. On his complaint, initially a case under Section 127(6) of BNS istered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the dead body of victim Pawan was recovered from a water tank situated in the premises of above said mill. Post-mortem examination of the same and inquest proceedings were conducted. The cause of death of the victim was opined to be head injury coupled with wound on chest. Accused Sagar @ Gullu and Gurpreet @ Mann were arrested on 05.09.2024. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of victim and also took the names of the present petitioner and co Prince and Aman. Accused Aman and Sahil were also arrested subsequently. In their respective disclosure statements, they too took the name of the present petitioner. The petitioner was detained on 17.09.2024. Inquiry was conducted and he confessed about his involvement in the murder of the victim. Investigation/inquiry stands completed and final investigation report against the petitioner and co-accused stands presented. The petitioner application for grant of regular bail before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal (for short ‘the Board’) dated 21.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the appellate Court with similar prayer, which too had been dismissed, running a security agency in the name of the Alert Men Group Security Services. Two persons from his agency, namely Gurpreet @ Mann and Sagar @ Gullu, were posted as security guards in RA International Rice Mill. The victim Pawan was also working as Supervisor in the said rice mill. All three of them, i.e. Pawan, Sagar and Mann, were missing since 27.08.2024 and could not be found. On his complaint, initially a case under Section 127(6) of BNS istered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the dead body of victim Pawan was recovered from a water tank situated in mortem examination of the same and The cause of death of the victim was coupled with wound on chest. Accused Sagar @ Gullu and Gurpreet @ Mann were arrested on 05.09.2024. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of victim and also took the names of the present petitioner and co-accused Sahil, Prince and Aman. Accused Aman and Sahil were also arrested subsequently. In their respective disclosure statements, they too took the name of the present detained on 17.09.2024. Inquiry was conducted and he confessed about his involvement in the murder of the victim. Investigation/inquiry stands completed and final investigation report against accused stands presented. The petitioner had filed an application for grant of regular bail before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board’), which was dismissed, vide order dated 21.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the appellate Court with similar prayer, which too had been dismissed, -2- running a security agency in the name of the Alert Men Group Security Gurpreet @ Mann and Sagar al Rice Mill. The victim Pawan was also working as Supervisor in the said rice mill. All three of them, i.e. Pawan, Sagar and Mann, were missing since 27.08.2024 and could not be found. On his complaint, initially a case under Section 127(6) of BNS istered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. During investigation, the dead body of victim Pawan was recovered from a water tank situated in mortem examination of the same and The cause of death of the victim was coupled with wound on chest. Accused Sagar @ Gullu and Gurpreet @ Mann were arrested on 05.09.2024. They suffered disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the murder of victim accused Sahil, Prince and Aman. Accused Aman and Sahil were also arrested subsequently. In their respective disclosure statements, they too took the name of the present detained on 17.09.2024. Inquiry was conducted and he confessed about his involvement in the murder of the victim. Investigation/inquiry stands completed and final investigation report against had filed an application for grant of regular bail before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile , which was dismissed, vide order dated 21.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the appellate Court with similar prayer, which too had been dismissed, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. impugned ord sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, they did not take into consideration the fact that the gravity of offences was not a criteria for denying benefit of bail to the peti seek benefit of bail as a matter of right. Act, 2015 were fully applicable in his case. There was nothing on record to show that his release was likely to bring him into assoc criminal or was likely to expose him to danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that no specific act had been attributed to the petitioner. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He lacked the maturity to participate in and comprehend the nature of offence alleged to be committed by him. He is in detention since time. All the witnesses are yet to be examined. impugned orders are liable to be set aside; the petition deserves to be and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail 4. learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana counsel for the complainant, against the petitioner, who by hatc actively participated in the occurrence and committed murder of the victim by CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders, as passed by the Board and learned appellate Court, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, they did not take into consideration the fact that the gravity of offences was not a criteria for denying benefit of bail to the petitioner. Being seek benefit of bail as a matter of right. The provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 were fully applicable in his case. There was nothing on record to show that his release was likely to bring him into assoc criminal or was likely to expose him to danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that no specific act had been attributed to the petitioner. There is no witness to the occurrence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He lacked the maturity to participate in and comprehend the nature of offence alleged to be committed by him. He is in detention since 17.09.2024. time. All the witnesses are yet to be examined. impugned orders are liable to be set aside; the petition deserves to be and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail Reply has been filed by the respondent learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana counsel for the complainant, that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner, who by hatching a conspiracy with the co actively participated in the occurrence and committed murder of the victim by vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ers, as passed by the Board and learned appellate Court, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, they did not take into consideration the fact that the gravity of offences was not a criteria for Being a juvenile, he was entitled to The provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 were fully applicable in his case. There was nothing on record to show that his release was likely to bring him into association of any known criminal or was likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that no specific act had been attributed to the petitioner. There is no witness to the occurrence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He lacked the maturity to participate in and comprehend the nature of offence alleged to be committed 17.09.2024. The trial would take considerable time. All the witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside; the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. n filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted by learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who is assisted by learned that there are serious and specific allegations hing a conspiracy with the co-accused actively participated in the occurrence and committed murder of the victim by -3- vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ers, as passed by the Board and learned appellate Court, are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, they did not take into consideration the fact that the gravity of offences was not a criteria for a juvenile, he was entitled to The provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 were fully applicable in his case. There was nothing on record to iation of any known moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that no specific act had been attributed to the petitioner. There is no witness to the occurrence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. No recovery has been effected from him. He lacked the maturity to participate in and comprehend the nature of offence alleged to be committed The trial would take considerable that the allowed State. It is submitted by , who is assisted by learned that there are serious and specific allegations accused actively participated in the occurrence and committed murder of the victim by MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) causing serious injuries to him. He was 17 years, 10 months and 09 days’ old on the date of occurrence and was about to attain the age of ma was fully competent to comprehend the consequences of the action taken by him. The Board has rightly observed that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The tr there woul the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. and have also gone through the material placed on record. 6. the date of occurrence. The moot question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the impugned orders are within the four corners of Section 12 of the Act, 2015? This S every child or non-bailable offence, if he being produced before the Board. released on bail with or without surety. Further, as per proviso to this section, such child shall not be released if there appear to be reasonable believing that his    7. 2015, it appears that the intention CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) causing serious injuries to him. He was 17 years, 10 months and 09 days’ old on the date of occurrence and was about to attain the age of ma was fully competent to comprehend the consequences of the action taken by The Board has rightly observed that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The trial has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. the petition does not deserve to be allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. The petitioner was undisputedly below the age of 18 years as on the date of occurrence. The moot question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the impugned orders are within the four corners of Section 12 of the Act, 2015? This Section every child in conflict with law, who is alleged to have committed a bailable bailable offence, if he is apprehended or detained by the police and is being produced before the Board. As per this section, s released on bail with or without surety. Further, as per proviso to this section, such child shall not be released if there appear to be reasonable believing that his release is likely to:-  Bring that person into association  Expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or;  The person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. From a bare reading of the provision of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, it appears that the intention of the legislature was to grant bail to a causing serious injuries to him. He was 17 years, 10 months and 09 days’ old on the date of occurrence and was about to attain the age of majority. Thus, he was fully competent to comprehend the consequences of the action taken by The Board has rightly observed that his release would defeat the ends of has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that d be any undue delay in conclusion thereof. It is, hence, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. The petitioner was undisputedly below the age of 18 years as on the date of occurrence. The moot question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the impugned orders are within the four corners of ection postulates rule for grant of bail to in conflict with law, who is alleged to have committed a bailable is apprehended or detained by the police and is As per this section, such child has to be released on bail with or without surety. Further, as per proviso to this section, such child shall not be released if there appear to be reasonable grounds for Bring that person into association with any known criminal or; Expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological The person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. From a bare reading of the provision of Section 12 of the Act, of the legislature was to grant bail to a -4- causing serious injuries to him. He was 17 years, 10 months and 09 days’ old jority. Thus, he was fully competent to comprehend the consequences of the action taken by The Board has rightly observed that his release would defeat the ends of has commenced and there is nothing on record to show that It is, hence, argued that I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length The petitioner was undisputedly below the age of 18 years as on the date of occurrence. The moot question that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the impugned orders are within the four corners of postulates rule for grant of bail to in conflict with law, who is alleged to have committed a bailable is apprehended or detained by the police and is uch child has to be released on bail with or without surety. Further, as per proviso to this section, grounds for with any known criminal or; Expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological From a bare reading of the provision of Section 12 of the Act, of the legislature was to grant bail to a MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) juvenile in conflict with law irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in cases where reasonable grounds are there for believing likely to bring him into association with any known moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Reference in this regard can also be made to Sadhu vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) ACC 616 gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. Similar observations have been made by other Co-ordinate Benches of this Co Haryana, 2020 (2) RCR (criminal) 342 (4) RCR (criminal) 475 (Criminal) 338 the Act, 2015, as culled out for declining bail to a juvenile in conflict with law, there has to be some material before the competent authority on the basis of which, it can be said that the rel exceptions recognized under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and that the seriousness of offence as mentioned in the FIR would not be a ground to deny to the juvenile, concession of bail. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others v Justice Board and another, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 131 observations were made. 8. that though the provisions of the Act, 2015 are meant conflict with law with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) juvenile in conflict with law irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in cases where reasonable grounds are there for believing likely to bring him into association with any known moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Reference in this regard can also be made to s. State of U.P., 2010 (1) ACC 616 gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. Similar observations have been made by ordinate Benches of this Court in Haryana, 2020 (2) RCR (criminal) 342; (4) RCR (criminal) 475 and Sanjeet vs. (Criminal) 338 by holding that for invoking the exceptions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, as culled out for declining bail to a juvenile in conflict with law, there has to be some material before the competent authority on the basis of which, it can be said that the release of the juvenile would fall within the exceptions recognized under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and that the seriousness of offence as mentioned in the FIR would not be a ground to deny to the juvenile, concession of bail. In this regard, reference can Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others vs Justice Board and another, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 131 observations were made. It may also be observed that the well settled proposition of law is that though the provisions of the Act, 2015 are meant conflict with law with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and juvenile in conflict with law irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in cases where reasonable grounds are there 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. Reference in this regard can also be made to Shiv Kumar @ s. State of U.P., 2010 (1) ACC 616, wherein it was observed that gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. Similar observations have been made by urt in Krishan Kumar vs. State of ; Vishal vs. State of Haryana 2020 State of Haryana, 2020 (4) RCR by holding that for invoking the exceptions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, as culled out for declining bail to a juvenile in conflict with law, there has to be some material before the competent authority on the basis ease of the juvenile would fall within the exceptions recognized under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and that the seriousness of offence as mentioned in the FIR would not be a ground to deny In this regard, reference can be made to s. Raju through Member, Juvenile Justice Board and another, 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 131, wherein similar be observed that the well settled proposition of law is that though the provisions of the Act, 2015 are meant to treat a child in conflict with law with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and -5- juvenile in conflict with law irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in that the release is criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the Shiv Kumar @ , wherein it was observed that gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. Similar observations have been made by State of State of Haryana 2020 State of Haryana, 2020 (4) RCR by holding that for invoking the exceptions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, as culled out for declining bail to a juvenile in conflict with law, there has to be some material before the competent authority on the basis ease of the juvenile would fall within the exceptions recognized under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and that the seriousness of offence as mentioned in the FIR would not be a ground to deny be made to . Raju through Member, Juvenile , wherein similar be observed that the well settled proposition of law is to treat a child in conflict with law with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) settle into the mainstream of society, be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences as that would clearly be treated as an effort to weaken the justice dispensation system and hence, should not be encour The object of juvenile by extending him services of reformatory nature but also to address the concern of society at large and as such, striking balance is necessary while considering not only the interest of the child but demand of justice to the victim as well and the fact that a juvenile can be denied concession of bail in case the exigencies as specified in the proviso to Section 1 shown to be existing keeping in mind the afore allegations against the petitioner are that on night of 26.08.2024, he along with co-accused Prince, Masum and Aman had come to the premises of the said rice mill, wherein co and had consumed liquor with the co a conspiracy with co victim by causing injuries to him by giving kicks, fist and danda blows and when the victim had fallen unconscious and had died, then to cause disappearance of offence of his murder, the petitioner along with co had tied a stone with the body of the victim and had thrown the same in a water tank existing in the premises of the rice mill. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Board, reveals that the social investigation report of th CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) settle into the mainstream of society, however be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences as that would clearly be treated as an effort to weaken the justice dispensation system and hence, should not be encour object of the Act, 2015 is to achieve not only the welfare and betterment of juvenile by extending him services of reformatory nature but also to address the concern of society at large and as such, striking balance is necessary while considering the matter of bail of a juvenile from the angle of not only the interest of the child but demand of justice to the victim as well and the fact that a juvenile can be denied concession of bail in case the exigencies as specified in the proviso to Section 1 shown to be existing. Now analyzing the pleas as taken in the petition while keeping in mind the afore-discussed position of law, in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are that on night of 26.08.2024, he along accused Prince, Masum and Aman had come to the premises of the said rice mill, wherein co-accused and victim Pawan Kumar had been working and had consumed liquor with the co-accused. On the same night, by hatching a conspiracy with co-accused, the petitioner along with them had assaulted the victim by causing injuries to him by giving kicks, fist and danda blows and when the victim had fallen unconscious and had died, then to cause disappearance of offence of his murder, the petitioner along with co had tied a stone with the body of the victim and had thrown the same in a water tank existing in the premises of the rice mill. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Board, reveals that the social investigation report of the petitioner had been called, as per which, his mother however, the same cannot be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences as that would clearly be treated as an effort to weaken the justice dispensation system and hence, should not be encouraged. of the Act, 2015 is to achieve not only the welfare and betterment of juvenile by extending him services of reformatory nature but also to address the concern of society at large and as such, striking balance is the matter of bail of a juvenile from the angle of not only the interest of the child but demand of justice to the victim as well and the fact that a juvenile can be denied concession of bail in case the exigencies as specified in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act, 2015 are Now analyzing the pleas as taken in the petition while discussed position of law, in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are that on night of 26.08.2024, he along accused Prince, Masum and Aman had come to the premises of the accused and victim Pawan Kumar had been working accused. On the same night, by hatching etitioner along with them had assaulted the victim by causing injuries to him by giving kicks, fist and danda blows and when the victim had fallen unconscious and had died, then to cause disappearance of offence of his murder, the petitioner along with co-accused had tied a stone with the body of the victim and had thrown the same in a water tank existing in the premises of the rice mill. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Board, reveals that the social e petitioner had been called, as per which, his mother -6- the same cannot be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe the course of justice while conducting trial and treatment of heinous offences as that would clearly be treated as an effort to aged. of the Act, 2015 is to achieve not only the welfare and betterment of juvenile by extending him services of reformatory nature but also to address the concern of society at large and as such, striking balance is the matter of bail of a juvenile from the angle of not only the interest of the child but demand of justice to the victim as well and the fact that a juvenile can be denied concession of bail in case the 2 of the Act, 2015 are Now analyzing the pleas as taken in the petition while discussed position of law, in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are that on night of 26.08.2024, he along accused Prince, Masum and Aman had come to the premises of the accused and victim Pawan Kumar had been working accused. On the same night, by hatching etitioner along with them had assaulted the victim by causing injuries to him by giving kicks, fist and danda blows and when the victim had fallen unconscious and had died, then to cause accused had tied a stone with the body of the victim and had thrown the same in a water tank existing in the premises of the rice mill. A perusal of the order dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Board, reveals that the social e petitioner had been called, as per which, his mother MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) had taken divorce about ten years back and he was living with his father. He was reported to be not disciplined. As per this report, he was negatively influenced by his peer group. The Board, while dis of the petitioner, had observed that though the gravity of the offence was required to be evaluated but looking into the family circumstances of the petitioner, he being living without his mother and given a liberal atmosphere at home being not monitored in terms of his movement and association with anti social elements, engaging in drinking and riding motorcycle without any license, the nature of role attributed to him and his being actively engaged in causing death of the vict defeat the ends of justice. Though, learned appellate Court, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, did not specifically discuss the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in particula that the social background report of the petitioner had been obtained by the learned Principal Magistrate of the Board, as per which, he lacked proper discipline and was prone to negative influences. The petitioner was verge of attaining majority at the time of occurrence. He had sufficient mental capacity or knowledge of consequences of the acts attributed to him. He is alleged to have played an active role in the occurrence. The provisions of Section 12 of the A advantage to the petitioner only as in the peculiar circumstances, no case is made out to show that declining his release would defeat the ends of justice. Rather, in the opinion of this Court, his release justice. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I find no reason to allow the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) had taken divorce about ten years back and he was living with his father. He was reported to be not disciplined. As per this report, he was negatively influenced by his peer group. The Board, while dis of the petitioner, had observed that though the gravity of the offence was required to be evaluated but looking into the family circumstances of the petitioner, he being living without his mother and given a liberal atmosphere at home being not monitored in terms of his movement and association with anti social elements, engaging in drinking and riding motorcycle without any license, the nature of role attributed to him and his being actively engaged in causing death of the victim in a gruesome manner, his release was likely to defeat the ends of justice. Though, learned appellate Court, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, did not specifically discuss the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in particula that the social background report of the petitioner had been obtained by the learned Principal Magistrate of the Board, as per which, he lacked proper discipline and was prone to negative influences. The petitioner was verge of attaining majority at the time of occurrence. He had sufficient mental capacity or knowledge of consequences of the acts attributed to him. He is alleged to have played an active role in the occurrence. The provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 cannot be interpreted in a manner to give advantage to the petitioner only as in the peculiar circumstances, no case is made out to show that declining his release would defeat the ends of justice. Rather, in the opinion of this Court, his release Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I find no reason to allow the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. had taken divorce about ten years back and he was living with his father. He was reported to be not disciplined. As per this report, he was negatively influenced by his peer group. The Board, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, had observed that though the gravity of the offence was required to be evaluated but looking into the family circumstances of the petitioner, he being living without his mother and given a liberal atmosphere at home being not monitored in terms of his movement and association with anti social elements, engaging in drinking and riding motorcycle without any license, the nature of role attributed to him and his being actively engaged in im in a gruesome manner, his release was likely to defeat the ends of justice. Though, learned appellate Court, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, did not specifically discuss the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in particular, however, keeping in view the fact that the social background report of the petitioner had been obtained by the learned Principal Magistrate of the Board, as per which, he lacked proper discipline and was prone to negative influences. The petitioner was at the verge of attaining majority at the time of occurrence. He had sufficient mental capacity or knowledge of consequences of the acts attributed to him. He is alleged to have played an active role in the occurrence. The provisions of ct, 2015 cannot be interpreted in a manner to give advantage to the petitioner only as in the peculiar circumstances, no case is made out to show that declining his release would defeat the ends of justice. Rather, in the opinion of this Court, his release would defeat the ends of Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I find no reason to allow the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. -7- had taken divorce about ten years back and he was living with his father. He was reported to be not disciplined. As per this report, he was negatively missing the bail application of the petitioner, had observed that though the gravity of the offence was required to be evaluated but looking into the family circumstances of the petitioner, he being living without his mother and given a liberal atmosphere at home being not monitored in terms of his movement and association with anti social elements, engaging in drinking and riding motorcycle without any license, the nature of role attributed to him and his being actively engaged in im in a gruesome manner, his release was likely to defeat the ends of justice. Though, learned appellate Court, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, did not specifically discuss the provisions r, however, keeping in view the fact that the social background report of the petitioner had been obtained by the learned Principal Magistrate of the Board, as per which, he lacked proper at the verge of attaining majority at the time of occurrence. He had sufficient mental capacity or knowledge of consequences of the acts attributed to him. He is alleged to have played an active role in the occurrence. The provisions of ct, 2015 cannot be interpreted in a manner to give advantage to the petitioner only as in the peculiar circumstances, no case is made out to show that declining his release would defeat the ends of justice. would defeat the ends of Keeping in view the discussion as made above, I find no reason to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) 11. are only for the purpose o have no bearing on the merits of the case. 22.04.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRR No. 226 of 2025 (O&M) However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. 22.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove f deciding the present petition and the same shall (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -8- However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove f deciding the present petition and the same shall MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document