The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on reformation and rehabilitation of the child in conflict with the law, as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act, and the special nature of the statute prevailing over the provisions of a general act.

JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 20.10.2020 and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 15.11.2019 whereby the application of the petitioner for his release on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act') has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No.679 dated 30.09.2019 under Section 302, 120-B, 201, 34 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The case of the prosecution is that co-accused Deepak had fired shots at the deceased-Sharwan. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused Puneet and Ajay @ Monu that the petitioner was sitting on the motorcycle outside the place of occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2019 and no recovery has been effected from him. He further contends that the Courts below have erroneously rejected the petition although in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner has to be released on bail on satisfaction of the three conditions stipulated therein. In support of his submissions, he has cited the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Vicky Vs. State of UT, Chandigarh, CRM-M-21388-2020, decided on 31.08.2020, Vishnu versus State of Haryana in CRR No.233 of 2021, decided on 02.06.2021 and Vishvas versus State of Punjab in CRR No.53 of 2021, decided on 08.02.2021. He also contends that after his arrest in the instant case, the petitioner has been involved in another case on the disclosure statement of co-accused.

4. On the contrary learned State counsel has contended that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime, punishable under Section 302 IPC and his release would defeat the ends of justice. He submits that as per the social investigation report, the petitioner has left the school due to failure in examination in the last class attended. He further contends that as per the social investigation report, the petitioner has been in bad company and had committed the crime due to peer pressure. He has left school and his release on bail would bring him in direct contact with the peer group under whose pressure he had committed the offence. He has relied upon the judgments of Allahabad High Court in the case of Raju @ Ashish Vs. State of U.P. and another, CRR No.2492-2017, decided on 07.07.2018 and Patna High Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2117 of 2019, decided on 30.09.2019. He also contends that this petition is not maintainable as the release of the juvenile would be governed by Section 439 of the Cr.P.C as he is being tried as an adult.

5. Heard.

6. The release of a juvenile/child in conflict with law on bail is governed by Section 12 of the Act which clearly spells out that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force bail shall be allowed to a child who is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence. However, there is a rider to this directive, which has further been specified in the proviso of Section 12. Bail is not to be allowed in case there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. The social investigation report in the instant case does not indicate that the release of the petitioner would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or will bring him into contact with any criminal elements. It is, no doubt, mentioned in the social investigation report that the petitioner had committed the offence under peer p