Vimla Singh Kapoor, J.

These two bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') have been placed before us for answering the reference made by the learned Single Judge while deferring with the view taken by the coordinate Bench in the matters of Mohan Vs. State of CG, (2005) CriLJ 3271 : 2005 SCC OnLine Chh 126} followed in Subhash Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {MCrC No.5651/2014, order dated 28.11.2014}. While the view in Mohan and Subhash Kumar @ Sonu was that despite the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000, which is pari materia to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth 'the Act of 2015'), the bail application under Section 439 of the Code is maintainable before the Sessions Court and the High Court, correctness of the view has been doubted by the learned Single Judge and the following question has been referred for decision by a Bench of Two Judges:-

"Whether in view of non obstante clause contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provisions under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. are applicable for being invoked for grant of bail by a child in conflict with law as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015."

2. In Mohan (Supra), it is held in para-13 that the Act does not take away the power and jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail as provided under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code. Similar view was taken by another coordinate Bench in the matter of Subhash Kumar @ Sonu, referred to above, holding thus at para-12:-

"12.Thus, taking into consideration the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, 2000, it is quite vivid that power conferred to the Juvenile Justice Board under the Act, 2000 can also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session either in appeal or revision or otherwise and the word "otherwise" also includes proceeding under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Thus, I hold that this bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., by the juvenile on refusal to grant bail by the Court of Session, is maintainable under law and it is held accordingly."

3. Taking contrary view, the learned Single Judge would conclude thus at para-18 of the Reference Order:-

"18.Analyzed as above, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 contains provision for grant of bail which is different from the scheme of grant of bail under Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C. as both operate on different considerations, though some of the considerations like consideration that grant of bail is likely to defeat the ends of justice could be relevant in both the cases. Therefore, it is vividly clear that the two schemes for grant of bail, one with regard to post arrest bail found under Section 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C. and other found under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 are inconsistent with each other and there is a great degree of repugnancy between them. While considering application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., mere gravity of allegations by itself may be ground for rejecting the bail but that considerations may not apply while considering grant of bail to a juvenile. Similarly, the Juvenile Justice Board shall have to reject the application for grant of bail of juvenile, if there appears to be reasonable ground for believing that release may expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger, which may not be relevant while considering application for grant of bail under Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, a comparative reading of the scheme for grant post arrest bail under general law and the special law reveals that the two schemes are inconsistent with each other. If this kind of conflict, inconsistency or repugnancy exists, non-obstante clause would operate to exclude the applicability of gener