The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of bail for juveniles in conflict with the law, the requirement for reasonable grounds to deny bail, and the emphasis on the best interest and rehabilitation of children under the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral). - (The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)

2. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, “the JJ Act”) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in Criminal Appeal No.135 of 2020 upholding order dated 25.09.2020 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dismissing the application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.115 dated 22.03.2020 registered under Sections 379-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") in Police Station Sadar, Yamuna Nagar.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the above said FIR was registered on statement of Krishan Lal. In his statement Krishan Lal alleged that on 21.03.2020 when after parking his truck at Matka Chowk, Jagadhri he was going to his house in an auto rikshaw and reached at Vishavkarma Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, two persons (claimed by the prosecution to be Dilroop @ Roopa and the petitioner-Shivansh) came in a black car and stopped nearby him and he took lift from them. After getting the petrol filled in the car and taking amount of Rs.50/- from him they turned towards village Dhorang and in the area thereof snatched amount of Rs.1,300/- and mobile phone from him and threw him in the fields and fled from the spot. During investigation, Dilroop @ Roopa was arrested and recovery of snatched amount of Rs.300/- was made from him. On the basis of his disclosure statement, the petitioner was apprehended on 02.07.2020 and he got the car, registration certificate and snatched amount of Rs.200/- recovered. The petitioner applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.08.2020 and appeal filed by the petitioner against the above said order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide order dated 24.08.2020. The petitioner again applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.09.2020. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the above said order was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide order dated 15.10.2020.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition for setting aside impugned orders and directing release of the petitioner on bail.

5. The petition has been opposed by learned State Counsel in terms of short reply filed by way of affidavit dated 27.11.2020 of Subhash Chand, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar-3 and short reply filed by way of affidavit dated 05.02.2021 of Kamal Deep Goyal, HPS, Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar.

6. The petitioner filed counter/rejoinder dated 22.02.2021 to the replies filed by the respondent.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and gone through the record.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Dilroop @ Roopa. The petitioner was not involved in commission of the alleged offences. During investigation, the petitioner was joined in test identification parade but the complainant did not identify the petitioner to be the person involved in the crime. The complainant has also given affidavit dated 14.05.2020 regarding non-involvement of the petitioner and non-user of the car No.HR-24AA-1985 in the crime. Recovery of car which belongs to father of the petitioner