ORDER :

1. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna, in Spl. (Child) Case No. 01/19, arising out of Complaint Case No. 16/2016-17, corresponding Special Case No. 03/2017 filed by the DRI, Patna, under Sections 20(b), 23, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereby the prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant (petitioner therein) having been rejected.

2. In summary, the whole matter is that the appellant is said to be the Khalasi of the Truck from where huge quantity i.e., 1814.70 kgs., of Ganja is said to have been recovered. The appellant was apprehended on the spot. Later on, the appellant took the plea that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of crime. As a result of which, the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) got initiated and the Board assessed the age of the appellant as 16 years 09 months and 21 days. Therefore, the appellant was declared to be a juvenile; more appropriately called a ‘child in conflict with law’. However, in view of the fact that the age of the appellant was more than 16 years and the offence allegedly committed by him falls into the category of ‘heinous offences’ the Board after conducting preliminary assessment with regard to the mental and physical capacity of the appellant passed an order under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and transferred the case for trial to the Children’s Court. Thereafter, the appellant moved before the Children’s Court for grant of bail. The Children’s Court vide its order dated 27.08.2019 rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, this appeal having been preferred by the appellant, challenging the rejection order and for grant of bail.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was innocent and he having been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted by him that neither the appellant had any knowledge of the contraband substance being kept in the Truck nor he had any concern with the recovered and seized Ganja. He lastly submitted that the alleged recovery had not been made from conscious possession of the appellant and prayed that since the appellant has been declared as a juvenile, thus, his prayer for bail be considered in accordance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and he is in custody since 04.01.2017.

4. Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India submitted that there is a huge quantity of recovery of Ganja in this case and the same is much beyond the commercial quantity, therefore, the prayer of bail of the appellant will have to be tested on the touchstone of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision given by the Orissa High Court in the case of Antaryami Patra Vs State of Orissa, reported in 1993 Cri. L.J.1908, wherein it was held as under:

“Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, (1986) made a general provision with regard to the right of a juvenile delinquent to be released on bail irrespective of the offences committed by him, but the NDPS Act is a special provision and in that special statute a further special provision has been made with regard to the preconditions to be satisfied for an accused being released on bail. Therefore, the said special provision of the special statute, namely, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would override Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act (1986).”

He has further relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the case of Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2018) 12 SCC 813 and State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, Criminal Appeal No. 154157/2020. In both these decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has put emphasis on the limitations and stringent provision of bail as stipulated under the NDPS Act.

5. After considering the rival submissions of the parties,