Point of Law: Accused who has axe to grind against the applicant is likely to name him as an accused to falsely impleade him in the offence has not been denied in any manner either before the Sessions Court or before this Court by the Investigating Agency. The Court has also considered the fact that the other accused persons who have been named in the FIR have already been released on regular bail. The applicant not being named in the FIR nor having any antecedents and no role being attributed by the Investigating Agency thus far, deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This is an application by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.11192050210093 of 2021 before Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 224, 225, 186, 332, 353, 395, 397, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 135 of the GP Act and under Section 12 of the Gambling Act.

3. The application is filed through the brother of the proposed accused who is aged 17 years and apprehends that he may be falsely involved in the aforesaid offence on account of the previous enmity with the accused No.1 though applicant is not named as an accused in the FIR.

4. The application essentially is for anticipatory bail of child in conflict with law. The State through Additional Public Prosecutor has raised question of maintainability of this application and therefore, the issue comes for consideration as to whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) can be maintained by child in conflict with law more particularly considering the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”).

5. The personal liberty of an individual is at the highest pedestal and the personal liberty of a juvenile cannot be considered to be anything lower. Right of an individual to a legal recourse is also fundamental for an individual and has to be so if not with more vigor for a juvenile.

5.1. With the aforesaid, it would be necessary to refer to few facts of the case. The applicant who is not named as an accused in the FIR has raised an apprehension that the applicant will be falsely implicated in the offence by naming him as an accused during the course of investigation by or at the behest of the accused No.1 as the applicant is having a previous quarrel with accused No.1 named in the FIR over a pet dog and therefore, the said accused No.1 would try to get the name of the applicant involved. Therefore, an application was filed before the 8th Additional District and Sessions judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, however, on account of maintainability the application was not entertained.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not involved in the offence and therefore also, the complainant has not named him in the offence however apprehension of arrest has arisen due to previous incident which occurred between accused No.1 regarding pet dog for which in the present offence accused No.1 and/or other co-accused named in the FIR are likely to name the present applicant as an accused in the offence during the course of investigation; thereby falsely implicating the applicant in the offence. It is submitted that the applicant had furnished a Video Footage to the Investigating Officer as well as to the Sessions Court wherein the entire incident was seen and no role of the applicant was coming out in that. It is also submitted that the co-accused who are named in the FIR have been enlarged on regular bail.

6.1. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Krishan Kumar Minor through his mother v/s. State of Haryana in CRM-M No.19907 of 2020 (O&M) to indicate that the High Court had exercised the discretion granting pre-arrest bail. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in the case of Kumari Shivani and another v/s. State of M.P., reported in 2009 SC OnLine MP 4803, wherein the anticipatory bail to the minor was granted. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Birbal Munda and others v/s. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine 1794. It is submitted that the Jharkhand High Court had taken into consideration all the aspects including relevant definitions an