Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040011282025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./23/2025 Tamchi Tache Son of Shri Tamchi Pallang, Nioph Nioya Village, (Sangram) PO and PS Sangram, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Paniye Bate, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. P. Bate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed against the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Koloriang, Page No.# 2/4 rejecting the prayer for release of the accused/petitioner/child in conflict with law. 3. The record reveals that the petitioner was arrested on 11.10.2018 in connection with Sangram P.S. Case No. 13/2018, under Sections 457/380/302 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, thereafter, the learned Sessions Court framed charges against the accused/petitioner without exhausting the procedure prescribed under Sections 15 and 18(3) of the JJ Act. 4. During the trial, the accused/petitioner filed an application under Section 9(2) of the JJ Act claiming juvenility at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The claim of the petitioner was supported by his Aadhaar Card, school leaving certificate, and birth certificate, showing his date of birth as 06.04.2001, issued on 16.06.2025. As per the said certificates, the age of the accused/petitioner at the time of commission of the alleged offence was 17 years and 4 months. However, at present, he has attained majority aged, 24 years and 5 months. 5. By order dated 04.12.2024, the learned Sessions Judge, after noting that 16 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, directed that the claim of juvenility be assessed by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act, 2015. Accordingly, the records were transmitted to the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Koloriang. 6. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Court on 30.08.2024, primarily on the ground that release at the stage of trial may prejudice the prosecution and that there was a likelihood of the petitioner influencing the remaining witnesses, more particularly three seizure witnesses Page No.# 3/4 who are yet to be examined. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner moved bail application before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, praying for grant of bail. The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 01.05.2025. The Board observed that the matter had been forwarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Ziro, for assessment; however, due to non-availability of a designated room for the proceedings, the matter could not be taken up for assessment till date. It was also observed that the petitioner had earlier moved a bail petition before the learned Sessions Court, and the same was rejected upon consideration on merits, and that no fresh or additional grounds had been raised in the present bail application. 8. Having perused the record, it is evident that the rejection of bail by the Board is founded not on the statutory considerations under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, but rather on administrative reasons, and the earlier order of the learned Sessions Court, which had rejected the bail prayer. It is trite law that bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule, and refusal is the exception. Denial can only be justified if any of the three conditions under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act is established, namely: I. That the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals; II. That his release would expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger; or III. That his release would defeat the ends of justice. 9. In the present case, the petitioner’s continued detention is solely due to the pendency of the assessment proceeding and delays occasioned by lack of infrastructural arrangements on the part of the administrative. Such Page No.# 4/4 administrative delay cannot override the statutory right of the petitioner to be considered for bail. 10. It is further observed that neither the Sessions Court nor the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Koloriang has recorded any positive finding that the release of the child in conflict with law (hereinafter referred to as "CCWL") would attract the exceptions under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act. Furthermore, Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the JJ Act, 2015, provides that the preliminary assessment in case of a heinous offence under Section 15 shall be disposed of by the learned Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child in conflict with law before the Board which in the present has miserably failed. 11. In view of the above, the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Koloriang, is hereby set aside. The petitioner, being a child in conflict with law, shall be released on bail in connection with Sangram P.S. Case No. 13/2018, under Sections 457/380/302 of IPC, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Koloriang. The natural guardian of the petitioner shall execute an undertaking to ensure that the accused/petitioner does not come into association with known criminals, does not indulge in any similar offence, and remains available for completion of inquiry/assessment and trial without fail. 12. With the above directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant