1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. This is a case which calls for attention of the Court in addressing an important issue: How to deal with a child in conflict with law, who has involved himself in something which is viewed by the society at large as a heinous crime, although the child does not understand the enormity and consequence of the act committed by him. The law, on it's part, does not look down upon such children as delinquents or criminals and only prefers to call them as children in conflict with law. It means, whatever behaviour they indulge in, is not viewed as a behaviour pregnant with mens rea or intention to commit a crime. That is the reason why the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, “the said Act, 2000”) has been brought on the statute book. It's object is to consolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care, protection and treatment by catering to their developmental needs and by adopting a child-friendly approach. All is done in the interest of such children with a view to ultimately provide for their rehabilitation and transforming them into better persons. Therefore, in a case like the present one, I am of the view that the authorities below ought to have adopted a different approach in consonance with the object of the said Act, 2000, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. No doubt, learned A.P.P. for the State is right when he submits that the alleged act committed by the petitioner is quite serious one as the first information report discloses that the applicant has been alleged to have committed sexual assault upon daughter of the complainant, who was aged about 1 years of age when the alleged incident took place. The alleged incident took place on 20/12/2014 in the house of the complainant. But, the fact remains that even for such an act, which is viewed by the adults as a serious one, the child cannot be attributed with any criminal intention. The act, from the view point of the child in conflict with law, is an impulsive behaviour done without any intention. All the same, from the lens of law, it is deviant behaviour, short of any criminality attached to it, it being inconsistent with the established norms of behaviour of the society. Sometimes it does happen that children simply do not want to go by the established rules of conduct and out of curiosity do flout them, but when they do so, the law does not look down upon them as criminals. Such children, in the eye of law, rather require care and protection of their parents, their guardians or the persons appointed by law for taking care of such children, so that their personality and character are cast into largely acceptable social moulds. This is the reason why the said Act, 2000 shuns the terms such as “juvenile offender”, “juvenile delinquent”, “juvenile criminal” and so on and chooses to call such a child as “child in conflict with law” or “child in need of care and protection” and requires a child friendly approach to be adopted in a case involving such a child. Therefore, in the instant case, a different approach, which serves the interests of the child in conflict with law and also caters to interests of the victim and prosecution will have to be adopted.

4. Viewed from this angle, I find that this Court will have to consider as to in whose custody the child in conflict with law would be looked after well, and is not allowed or tempted to indulge in any unpleasant or deviant behaviour so that he is made into a better human being from the view point of the general members of the society, thereby protecting interests of the child as well as the prosecution.

5. In the instant case, the Juvenile Justice Board has refused to release the child in conflict with law on bail and directed the child to be kept at the observation home. When an appeal was filed