CRR-1077-2026 IN THE H (227) JXXXXX STATE OF PUNJ CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. R MANISHA BATR 1. The challenging the o Magistrate, Juveni dated 23.08.2024 Psychotropic Subs Arms Act at Polic for grant of regul with law (CCL) b 06.04.2026 passed of 2026 filed und Children) Act, 2 upholding the orde 2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition has the order dated 27.09.2024 passe Juvenile Justice Board, Amritsar in c .2024 registered under Sections 21 Substances Act (for short “NDPS A t Police Station STF, SAS Nagar (Mo regular bail as filed by the petitione CL) being minor, had been dismissed passed by the Learned Appellate Cour ed under Section 101 of Juvenile J ct, 2015 (for short “Act, 2015”) e order as passed by the Learned Princ JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRR-1077-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.05.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA for the petitioner Punjab has been filed by the petitioner passed by the Learned Principal r in case arising out of FIR No.126 21-C, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and PS Act) and Sections 25 and 27 of ar (Mohali), whereby an application titioner who was a child in conflict issed as well as the judgment dated e Court in a Criminal Appeal No.201 nile Justice (Care & Protection of 15”) had been dismissed thereby d Principal Magistrate, Amritsar. M) 2026 oner dent ioner cipal 126 and 7 of ation nflict ated .201 n of reby AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 2. Brief that the aforeme 23.08.2024, on th alongwith co-accu Malkeet Singh @ Creta car. On con pant worn by the p of heroin, 1 pisto Wassan Singh @ alongwith 03 live @ Kikki. The re occupants were p was found to be a report qua him wa and presently the Sessions Court. T was dismissed. T been dismissed by aggrieved the pres 3. It is a falsely implicated was below the age to be released on Act, 2015. While 2026 (O&M) 2 Brief facts relevant for the purpose o forementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a secret information, ccused Gurcharan Singh @ Kiki, gh @ Meet were apprehended, while conducting search 260 grams of he y the petitioner had been recovered, w pistol alongwith 08 live cartridges w gh @ Fauji and recovery of 280 gra 3 live cartridges was effected from the The recovered contraband, weapons ere present, had been taken into pos o be a CCL, after completion of inqu im was presented before the Juvenile J tly the petitioner is facing trial as urt. The application filed by the peti ed. The petitioner filed an appeal ag sed by the Sessions Court vide orde e present petition has been filed. It is argued by learned counsel for t icated in this case. A false recovery h he age of 18 years at the time of occur ed on bail as a matter of right under While passing the impugned orders, rpose of disposal of this petition are tered on the allegations that on ation, the present petitioner CCL-J Kiki, Wassan Singh @ Fauji and , while all of them were sitting in a s of heroin kept in the pocket of the ered, whereas recovery of 260 grams es was effected from co-accused 80 grams of heroin and 01 revolver om the co-accused Gurcharan Singh apons and the vehicle in which the to possession. Since the petitioner f inquiry/investigation, challan/final enile Justice Board (for short “JJB”) al as an adult before the Learned e petitioner for grant of regular bail eal against the said order which has e order dated 06.04.2026. Feeling l for the petitioner that he has been very has been planted upon him. He f occurrence and as such was entitled the provisions of Section 12 of the learned Principal Magistrate n are t on J and in a f the rams used olver ingh the ioner /final JB”) d bail has eling been . He titled 2 of trate AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 and the Learned provisions of Sec Non-speaking and the impugned ord allowed and furthe 4. Per c alongwith the co quantity of contrab rigors of Section 3 by the Principal M well-reasoned and on bail would cert would also bring the ends of justice be allowed. 5. This C for the parties at co 6. The A related to children need of care and p protection, develo friendly approach of the children a 2026 (O&M) 3 Appellate Court did not take this f Section 12 of the Act, 2015 had n ng and perverse orders have been passe ed orders are liable to be set aside further the petitioner deserves to be re Per contra, learned State counsel h he co-accused was found in conscio contraband. Allegations against him a ction 37 of NDPS Act are attracted in cipal Magistrate as well as Learned A ed and do not warrant any interference ld certainly expose him to moral, phy bring him into association with know justice. It is, therefore, stressed that th This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. he Act, 2015 was enacted to con hildren alleged and found to be in con and protection by catering to their ba development, treatment, social reinte roach in the adjudication and disposal ren and for their rehabilitation thro ke this point into consideration. The had not been properly appreciated. n passed. It is, therefore, argued that aside, the petition deserves to be o be released on bail. nsel has argued that the petitioner onscious possession of commercial him are quite serious in nature. The cted in this case. The orders passed rned Additional Sessions Judge are erence. The release of the petitioner physical or psychological danger, known-criminals and would defeat that the petition does not deserve to ubmissions made by learned counsel to consolidate and amend the law conflict with law and children in heir basic needs through proper care, reintegration by adopting a child isposal of matters in the best interest n through processes provided, and The ated. that o be ioner rcial The ssed e are ioner nger, efeat ve to unsel law in care, child erest and AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 institutions and b matters of grant o conflict with law. juvenile at the tim that falls for con impugned orders, corners of Section considered that in 2015, the rigors o Section 12 of the conflict with law, offence, if he/she i before the Board. on bail with or wit be released, if the release is likely to 2026 (O&M) 4 and bodies established. Section 12 rant of bail to a person who is appar h law. In the instant case, it is not in d he time of commission of offences in r consideration before this Court is as rders, the Board and the Appellate C ection 12 of the Act, 2015 or not? At that in view of the non obstante clau gors of Section 37(1) (b) of NDPS A of the Act, 2015 postulates rule of g h law, who is alleged to have commit e/she is apprehended or detained by th oard. As per provisions of this section or without surety. As per proviso to th if there appear to be reasonable gro ely to:-  Bring that person int criminal or;  Expose the said pe psychological danger  The person’s releas justice. n 12 of the Act, 2015 deals with apparently a child alleged to be in ot in dispute that the petitioner was a nces in question. The main question as to whether while passing the late Court had acted within the four ot? At the same time, it is also to be te clause in Section 12 of the Act, DPS Act will be applicable or not? e of grant of bail for every child in ommitted a bailable or non-bailable by the police and is being produced section, such child has to be released o to this section, such child shall not le grounds for believing that his/her on into association with any known aid person to moral, physical or anger or; release would defeat the ends of with be in as a stion g the four to be ct, ot? ld in lable uced d ll not s/her own l or of AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 7. From it appears that the conflict with law have been commi reasonable groun into association w psychological dan also well settled b alleged to have b rejection of bail un be made to Shiv Krishan Kumar vs vs. State of Hary invoking exceptio there has to be which, it can be exceptions recogn seriousness of offe the juvenile, conce 8. Now 37(1)(b) of the ND law is that the rigo cases like the pre Singh @ Baja v. 2026 (O&M) 5 rom a bare reading of the provision at the intention of the legislature was h law irrespective of the nature or gra ommitted by him and the same can be rounds are there for believing that the tion with any known-criminal or exp al danger or that his release would d ttled by now by a catena of judgmen ave been committed by a CCL can bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu vs. State o ar vs. State of Haryana, 2020 (2) R aryana, 2020 (4) RCR (criminal) ceptions to Section 12 of the Act, 201 some material before the compe an be said that the release of the ju recognized under Section 12 of t offence as mentioned in the FIR wo , concession of bail. Now with regard to the applicability the NDPS Act, it may be stated that he rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the Ac he present one. Reference in this re a v. State of Haryana, 2007(3) RC ision of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, re was to grant bail to a juvenile in or gravity of the offence alleged to can be declined only in cases where the release is likely to bring him expose him to moral, physical or ould defeat the ends of justice. It is dgments that the gravity of offence L cannot be taken as a ground for t, 2015. Reference in this regard can te of U.P., (2010) 68 ACC 616, 2) RCR (criminal) 342 and Vishal nal) 475. It is, thus, clear that for t, 2015, for declining bail to a CCL, competent authority on the basis of the juvenile would fall within the of the Act, 2015 and that the IR would not be a ground to deny to ability of the provisions of Section that the well settled proposition of the Act will not be applicable in such this regard can be made to Gurbaj ) RCR (Criminal) 398; Neeraj @ 015, ile in ed to here him al or It is ce d for can 16, hal t for CL, is of the the ny to ction n of such baj @ AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 Dheeraj @ Kalia Lokesh Choudhar Reference can also Criminal Law Jo the scope of Secti relying upon the o Ltd. v. Fairgrowt under:- 2026 (O&M) 6 alia v. State of Haryana, Law F dhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 S an also be made to Praveen Kumar M Journal 200, wherein the High C f Section 12 of Act, 2015 and Sectio n the observations made by Hon’ble A rowth Financial Services Ltd., JT 2 “12. In section 12 of the provision “notwithstanding a of Criminal Procedure, 197 time being in force” has indicates that the provisions Act has an overriding effect on other laws, if any, for the true that section 37 of the N obstante clause, according section 37 of the NDP notwithstanding anything Therefore, section 37 of t overriding effect only on the Moreover, the NDPS Act wa was in force on the date of c Act, therefore, the “notwithstanding anything Criminal Procedure, 1973 o being in force” contained in overrides also the provision Act because the NDPS A w Finder Doc Id #1772460 and 018 SCC OnLine Rajasthan 1246. ar Maurya v. State of U.P., 2011 igh Court of Allahabad considered Section 37 of NDPS Act and while n’ble Apex Court in Solidaire India JT 2001 (2) SC 639, observed as he Juvenile Act, a non obstante ding anything contained in the Code e, 1973 or in any other law for the ” has been placed, which clearly isions of section 12 of the Juvenile effect not only on the Code but also the time being in force. It is also NDPS Act, 1985 has also a non rding to which the provisions of NDPS Act 1985, have effect thing contained in the Code. of the NDPS Act, 1985 has an on the Code and not on other laws. ct was enacted in the year 1985 and te of commencement of the Juvenile the non obstante provision thing contained in the Code of 3 or any other law for the time ed in section 12 of the Juvenile Act, visions of section 37 of the NDPS PS Act squarely falls within the nd 46. 11 ered ile dia ed as tante Code r the early enile also lso n s of ffect ode. s an laws. and enile ision e of time Act, DPS the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 9. As pe found in consciou illicit weapons we impugned order Additional Sessio Investigation Repo 2026 (O&M) 7 expression “any other law contained in section 12 of relevant to mention that wh the two enactments, the later 13. It is true that section conditions, fulfilment of whi bail, firstly, the public pr opportunity to oppose th secondly, where the pub application for bail, the cou before releasing the accused reasonable grounds for beli guilty of such offence, and commit any offence while juvenile accused who is i narcotic substances involvin entitled for bail in a routine m somehow different. The juvenile on the date of oc matter was liable to be go Juvenile Act and the provisio Act was not applicable, es Juvenile Act overrides the p NDPS Act in the case of a pe As per the allegations, the petitioner nscious possession of commercial qu were also recovered from the co rder neither the Learned Principal Sessions Judge are shown to have ta n Report of the petitioner, so as to elic r law for the time being in force”, 12 of the Juvenile Act. It is also at when there is a conflict between e later enactment prevails. ction 37(1) (b) has imposed two of which is necessary before grant of lic prosecutor must be given an se the application for bail and public prosecutor opposes the he court must record its satisfaction ccused on bail that – (a) there are r believing that the accused is not e, and (b) that he is not likely to while on bail. Therefore, a non- o is involved in dealing with the volving commercial quantity is not utine manner. But the present case is The revisionist was admittedly a of occurrence, therefore, his bail be governed by section 12 of the rovisions of section 37 of the NDPS specially when section 12 of the s the provisions of section 37 of the of a person who is a juvenile.” tioner alongwith the co-accused was cial quantity of contraband. Some the co-accused. While passing the ncipal Magistrate nor the Learned ave taken into consideration Social elicit information that the release rce”, also ween two nt of n an nd the ction e are not ly to - the s not se is ly a bail f the DPS f the f the was ome the rned ocial lease AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 of the petitioner w would expose him would defeat the e under the provisio complete departur while extending is not relevant for 2015 is to provid conflict with law. for grant of regula view of Section enlarged on bail, thereof. On consid on the anvil of th Court is of the op Magistrate as well any sufficient mat bring him into as physical or psycho 10. In vie circumstances of t reasonable ground Section 12 of the 2026 (O&M) 8 oner would bring him into association se him to any moral, physical or psych t the ends of justice. As already dis rovisions of Act, 2015 to a juvenile parture to the principle that gravity ding benefit of bail to an accused and m ant for the purpose. The basic object provide care, protection, treatment an h law. Undoubtedly, no indefeasible r regular bail under the Act, 2015, how ction 12 of the Act, 2015, ordinari bail, except in the circumstance a considering the orders passed by the l of the ingredients for grounds of the opinion that the conclusion arrive s well as the Learned Additional Ses nt material to prove that the release o into association of any known-crimi psychological danger or was to defeat t In view of the above referred judicia es of the case particularly in the abse rounds for belief as to existence of a of the Act, 2015 for denial of bail, th ciation with any known-criminal or r psychological danger or his release discussed in case of grant of bail venile in conflict with law, there is avity of the offence has to be seen d and merit and nature of the offence object of the provisions of the Act, ent and rehabilitation to juvenile in ble right exists in favour of a CCL 5, however, still at the same time, in rdinarily a juvenile deserves to be ance as enumerated in the proviso y the Board and the appellate Court s of rejecting/granting the bail, this arrived at by the Learned Principal al Sessions Judge were not based on lease of the petitioner was likely to criminal or expose him to moral, efeat the ends of justice. dicial precedents and the facts and e absence of any material furnishing e of any of the grounds specified in ail, this Court is of the opinion that al or lease bail re is seen ence Act, le in CCL e, in o be viso ourt this cipal d on ly to oral, and hing ed in that AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-1077-2026 the petitioner is en sustainable and are 11. Acco are set aside and t personal bonds wi Court/Principal M 12. Offic Court concerned fo 20.05.2026 Amit Sharma 2026 (O&M) 9 r is entitled to grant of bail and the im and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is a and the petitioner is ordered to be rel with one surety in the like amoun ipal Magistrate (JJB)/CJM concerned. Office is directed to transmit certif rned for information and necessary com (MA Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No impugned orders as such are not ion is allowed. The impugned orders be released on bail on furnishing of mount to the satisfaction of the trial rned. ified copy of this order to the ary compliance. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No e not rders ng of trial the AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.21 18:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.