CRR-1699- IN THE 291 XXXX(CCL) State of Punjab CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. 04.04.2025, whereby the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali dismissed the bail application of the petitioner against the order dated 13.05.2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, dismissin 2. under Sections 103, 10 under:- 1 -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: XXXX(CCL) VERSUS State of Punjab HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Shalini Attri, Advocate for the Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been preferred against the 04.04.2025, whereby the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali dismissed the bail application of the petitioner against the order dated 13.05.2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner The contents of the FIR No.100 dated 01.03.2025 registered under Sections 103, 109 and 191(3) of BNS, 2023 “Copy of statement. Statement of Goldy son of Om Parkash resident of Near Hanuman Mandir, Bentabad, Gidderbaha, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib now resident of Flat No. C Police Station Zirakpur, District years, Mobile No. 98506-00028. Stated that I am a resident of the above address. I work at Motia Royal City, Zirakpur. My friend Rahul Bansal son of Vikas Bansal resident of Near Baba HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1699-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 05, 2025 ..... Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.04.2025, whereby the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali dismissed the bail application of the petitioner-CCL and against the order dated 13.05.2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions g the appeal of the petitioner-CCL. The contents of the FIR No.100 dated 01.03.2025 registered and 191(3) of BNS, 2023, PS Zirakpur, reads as “Copy of statement. Statement of Goldy son of Om Parkash resident of Near Hanuman Mandir, Bentabad, Gidderbaha, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib now resident of Flat No. C-1, Sarleen Society, Zirakpur, Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, aged about 24 00028. Stated that I am a resident of the above address. I work at Motia Royal City, Zirakpur. My friend Rahul Bansal son of Vikas Bansal resident of Near Baba (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner .....Respondent order dated 04.04.2025, whereby the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice CCL and against the order dated 13.05.2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions The contents of the FIR No.100 dated 01.03.2025 registered reads as “Copy of statement. Statement of Goldy son of Om Parkash resident of Near Hanuman Mandir, Bentabad, Gidderbaha, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar 1, Sarleen Society, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, aged about 24 00028. Stated that I am a resident of the above address. I work at Motia Royal City, Zirakpur. My friend Rahul Bansal son of Vikas Bansal resident of Near Baba PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1699- 2 -2025 (O&M) Ganga Ram Stadium, Gidderbaha and Rahul Charay Pardeep Charaya resident of Near SSD School, Malour, Police Station Malout, District Muktsar Sahib also live with me in my above flat. Yesterday on 28.02.2025, I, my friend Rahul Bansal and Rahul Charaya at around 11:15 PM went to get Pizza at Dominos, VIP Road, Zirakpur in my Verna Card No. PB BE-5028. I was driving the Car, Rahul Charaya was sitting with me in the front seat and Rahul Bansal was sitting behind Rahul Charaya in the back seat. When we reached in front of Penta House, Zirakpur at around 11:30 PM, we saw that 6 people were fighting among themselves and were gave severe beatings to a boy. So we stopped our car and tried to stop their fight and tried to save the boy who was being beaten. After some time, a young boy opened the rea sat in the car then we asked him to get out of our Car. In between, 8-10 more boys came there. After that 5 boys started fighting with Rahul Bansal instead of the boy who entered my Car. They opened the rear window of the c they took Rahul Bansal out of the Car and repeatedly attacked upon Rahul Bansal with sharp weapons. Due to which Rahul Bansal fell down and then all three of us started shouting and the unknown boy opened the window of our car and ran away from the spot. When many people started gathering then we put Rahul Bansal in the front seat of my car and took him for treatment to M.Care Hospital, VIP Road, Zirakpur. Where Dr. Sahib gave first aid to Rahul Bansal and sent him to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh as h Where Sahil Bansal brother of Rahul Bansal also reached. At GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh Doctor Sahib examined Rahul Bansal and told that he has died. Dead body of Rahul Bansal has been kept at the Dead House of GMCH, Sector 3 Ganga Ram Stadium, Gidderbaha and Rahul Charayan son of Pardeep Charaya resident of Near SSD School, Malour, Police Station Malout, District Muktsar Sahib also live with me in my above flat. Yesterday on 28.02.2025, I, my friend Rahul Bansal and Rahul Charaya at around 11:15 PM went to get Pizza at minos, VIP Road, Zirakpur in my Verna Card No. PB-65 5028. I was driving the Car, Rahul Charaya was sitting with me in the front seat and Rahul Bansal was sitting behind Rahul Charaya in the back seat. When we reached in front of t around 11:30 PM, we saw that 6- people were fighting among themselves and were gave severe beatings to a boy. So we stopped our car and tried to stop their fight and tried to save the boy who was being beaten. After some time, a young boy opened the rear window of my car and sat in the car then we asked him to get out of our Car. In 10 more boys came there. After that 5-6 unknown boys started fighting with Rahul Bansal instead of the boy who entered my Car. They opened the rear window of the car and they took Rahul Bansal out of the Car and repeatedly attacked upon Rahul Bansal with sharp weapons. Due to which Rahul Bansal fell down and then all three of us started shouting and the unknown boy opened the window of our car and ran away spot. When many people started gathering then we put Rahul Bansal in the front seat of my car and took him for treatment to M.Care Hospital, VIP Road, Zirakpur. Where Dr. Sahib gave first aid to Rahul Bansal and sent him to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh as his condition was very serious. Where Sahil Bansal brother of Rahul Bansal also reached. At GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh Doctor Sahib examined Rahul Bansal and told that he has died. Dead body of Rahul Bansal has been kept at the Dead House of GMCH, Sector 32, an son of Pardeep Charaya resident of Near SSD School, Malour, Police Station Malout, District Muktsar Sahib also live with me in my above flat. Yesterday on 28.02.2025, I, my friend Rahul Bansal and Rahul Charaya at around 11:15 PM went to get Pizza at 65- 5028. I was driving the Car, Rahul Charaya was sitting with me in the front seat and Rahul Bansal was sitting behind Rahul Charaya in the back seat. When we reached in front of -7 people were fighting among themselves and were gave severe beatings to a boy. So we stopped our car and tried to stop their fight and tried to save the boy who was being beaten. After r window of my car and sat in the car then we asked him to get out of our Car. In 6 unknown boys started fighting with Rahul Bansal instead of the boy who ar and they took Rahul Bansal out of the Car and repeatedly attacked upon Rahul Bansal with sharp weapons. Due to which Rahul Bansal fell down and then all three of us started shouting and the unknown boy opened the window of our car and ran away spot. When many people started gathering then we put Rahul Bansal in the front seat of my car and took him for treatment to M.Care Hospital, VIP Road, Zirakpur. Where Dr. Sahib gave first aid to Rahul Bansal and sent him to GMCH, is condition was very serious. Where Sahil Bansal brother of Rahul Bansal also reached. At GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh Doctor Sahib examined Rahul Bansal and told that he has died. Dead body of Rahul Bansal 2, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1699- 3. Superintend compliance of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court filed, which is taken on record. 4. petitioner was a juvenile at the 01.03.2025. Further, the petitioner is not alleged to have given any blow to the deceased, which is specifically attributed to co Yashpal. Further, he was neither named in the FIR and nor any overt been attributed to him. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co interrogation, which has not evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Further, apart from the disclosure statem complicity of the petitioner. Further, he is facing incarceration since 02.03.2025. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of State of Punjab, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 62; Sukhwinder Singh Versus State of 3 -2025 (O&M) Chandigarh. The above 5-06 unknown persons whom we can identity when they come forward have killed Rahul Bansal because we had rescued the boy whom they were beating. I have reached Zirakpur Police Station in the presence of Rahul Bansal's father Vikas Bansal son of Ram Gopal Bansal resiedent of near Baba Ganga Rm Stadium, Gidderbaha and got it recorded. I have read it and heard it correctly. Appropriate action should be taken.” Status report by way of affidavit of Jaspinder Singh, PPS, Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Zirakpur,District SAS Nagar, in compliance of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court filed, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence i.e. 01.03.2025. Further, the petitioner is not alleged to have given any blow to the deceased, which is specifically attributed to co Yashpal. Further, he was neither named in the FIR and nor any overt been attributed to him. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co- interrogation, which has not evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Further, apart from the disclosure statement there is no other evidence to suggest the complicity of the petitioner. Further, he is facing incarceration since 02.03.2025. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of State of Punjab, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 62; Sukhwinder Singh Versus State of 06 unknown persons whom we can identity when they come forward have killed Rahul Bansal because we had rescued the boy whom they were beating. I have reached Zirakpur Police Station in the presence of Rahul Bansal son of Ram Gopal Bansal resiedent of near Baba Ganga Rm Stadium, Gidderbaha and got it recorded. I have read it and heard it correctly. Appropriate action should be taken.” Status report by way of affidavit of Jaspinder Singh, PPS, Division Zirakpur,District SAS Nagar, in compliance of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court filed, which Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the time of the alleged occurrence i.e. 01.03.2025. Further, the petitioner is not alleged to have given any blow to the deceased, which is specifically attributed to co-accused Harpreet and Yashpal. Further, he was neither named in the FIR and nor any overt act has been attributed to him. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis -accused during the custodial interrogation, which has not evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Further, ent there is no other evidence to suggest the complicity of the petitioner. Further, he is facing incarceration since 02.03.2025. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Harwinderjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 62; Sukhwinder Singh Versus State of 06 unknown persons whom we can identity when they come forward have killed Rahul Bansal because we had rescued the boy whom they were beating. I have reached Zirakpur Police Station in the presence of Rahul Bansal son of Ram Gopal Bansal resiedent of near Baba Ganga Rm Stadium, Gidderbaha and got it recorded. I have read it and heard it correctly. Status report by way of affidavit of Jaspinder Singh, PPS, Division Zirakpur,District SAS Nagar, in compliance of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court filed, which Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the time of the alleged occurrence i.e. 01.03.2025. Further, the petitioner is not alleged to have given any blow to accused Harpreet and act has been attributed to him. The petitioner has been nominated only on the basis accused during the custodial interrogation, which has not evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Further, ent there is no other evidence to suggest the complicity of the petitioner. Further, he is facing incarceration since 02.03.2025. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the ngh Versus State of Punjab, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 62; Sukhwinder Singh Versus State of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1699- Punjab, 2020(3) PLR 403 and Vishvas Versus State of Punjab, 2021(2) RCR (Crl.) 207. 5. made by the petitioner on the ground that the complicity of the petitioner is duly established and keeping in view the serious allegations made against the petitioner, he is not entitled to any rel 6. State counsel. 7. that the petitioner was 17 ½ years of age at the time of the alleged incident and as such, he is Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This Court in Vishvas (supra) has held as under: 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (here present controversy, which is reproduced as under : 4 -2025 (O&M) Punjab, 2020(3) PLR 403 and Vishvas Versus State of Punjab, 2021(2) RCR (Crl.) 207. Learned State counsel on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the complicity of the petitioner is duly established and keeping in view the serious allegations made against the petitioner, he is not entitled to any relief. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.05.2025, transpires that the petitioner was 17 ½ years of age at the time of the alleged incident and as such, he is required to be considered in terms of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This Court in (supra) has held as under:- 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (here-in-after referred to as `J.J. Act') is relevant in the present controversy, which is reproduced 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 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 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing tha Punjab, 2020(3) PLR 403 and Vishvas Versus State of Punjab, 2021(2) Learned State counsel on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the complicity of the petitioner is duly established and keeping in view the serious allegations made against ief. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.05.2025, transpires that the petitioner was 17 ½ years of age at the time of the alleged incident required to be considered in terms of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This Court in 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) ter referred to as `J.J. Act') is relevant in the present controversy, which is reproduced as under :- “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in (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 or in any being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely Punjab, 2020(3) PLR 403 and Vishvas Versus State of Punjab, 2021(2) Learned State counsel on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the complicity of the petitioner is duly established and keeping in view the serious allegations made against I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.05.2025, transpires that the petitioner was 17 ½ years of age at the time of the alleged incident required to be considered in terms of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This Court in 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) ter referred to as `J.J. Act') is relevant in the “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to 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 or in any or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation Provided that such person shall not be so released if there t the release is likely PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1699- 5 -2025 (O&M) to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for d circumstances that led to such a decision.( emphasis supplied) (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer station, such officer shall cause the perso 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 (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, such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within child shall be produced before the Board for modification conditions of bail. 7. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, and bail can be declined only in such cases where are there for believing that the release is likely to bring juvenile into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Meaning thereby, as per aforesaid provision, a juvenile can be bail, if any of the three contingencies specified 12 (1) of the J.J. Act is available. Similar view was observed cases Manoj Singh vs State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons 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.( emphasis supplied) (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released 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 on 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 fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of Act, it appears that the intention of the legislature is to juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of been committed by him, and bail can be declined only in such cases where reasonable grounds are there for believing that the release is likely to bring the association of any known criminal or expose him physical or psychological danger, or that his release of justice. Meaning thereby, as per aforesaid provision, a juvenile can be denied the concession of hree contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act is available. Similar view was observed in Manoj Singh vs State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the enying the bail and (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released charge of the police n to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an for the (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the such of the From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of Act, it appears that the intention of the legislature is to juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of been committed by him, and bail reasonable grounds the association of any known criminal or expose him physical or psychological danger, or that his release of justice. Meaning thereby, as per denied the concession of under Section in Manoj Singh vs State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1699- 8. terms of the Children) Act, 2015 9. held that bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be denied merely due to the seriousness of the offence. As per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, bail is mandatory unless ther with criminals, facing harm or defeating the ends of justice 10. revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders i.e. 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail/sur the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 11. stand disposed of. August 05, 2025 P.C 6 -2025 (O&M) 995,Lal Chand v.State of Rajasthan 2006(1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v.State of Rajasthan 2005(4) Crimes 649.” The issue in hand is required to be considered and decide terms of the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have held that bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be denied merely due to the seriousness of the offence. As per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, bail is mandatory unless there is a risk of the child associating with criminals, facing harm or defeating the ends of justice In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders i.e. 13.05.2025 passed rned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail/sur the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : v.State of Rajasthan 2006(1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 530 and Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v.State of Rajasthan The issue in hand is required to be considered and decided in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be denied merely due to the seriousness of the offence. As per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice e is a risk of the child associating with criminals, facing harm or defeating the ends of justice. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders i.e. 13.05.2025 passed rned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No v.State of Rajasthan 2006(1) RCC 167, Criminal) 530 and Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v.State of Rajasthan in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of consistently held that bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be denied merely due to the seriousness of the offence. As per Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice e is a risk of the child associating In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders i.e. 13.05.2025 passed rned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mohali are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released ety bonds to the satisfaction of All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.05 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document