The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail for a child in conflict with law is the rule, and rejection of bail is an exception. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence for children under the age of eighteen and the need for reasons in conformity with the statute and precedent judgments for denying bail.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. Instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaithal declining the application of the Child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal in appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaithal and to the averments made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, wherein, it is acknowledged by the State that there is no material on record to show that the release of child in conflict with law or is likely to bring them into association with any known-criminal or to expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger and then to submit that their release would defeat the ends of justice, as the children in conflict with law have been involved in the offence with other hardened criminals. By placing reliance on the same, it has been submitted that the application for release of the child in conflict has been rejected ignoring the mandate of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner has been in custody since November, 2020 despite being declared a juvenile under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. It is further submitted on merits that as per the allegations borne out from the FIR, four persons were alleged to have attacked the complainant and snatched his motorcycle. One person showed pistol to the complainant and also took away his phone. It is alleged that recovery of the pistol has been effected from the co- accused and not from the petitioner and further that only a mobile phone has been shown to be recovered from the petitioner. However, there is nothing to link the mobile phone to that of the complainant, since the person with pistol is alleged to have snatched the phone.

5. The petition has been opposed by learned State counsel by making a reference to the observation recorded in the order by the learned Lower Appellate Court and to argue that co-accused Monu was armed with a pistol and the petitioner had actively participated in the commission of offence by causing injuries to the victim. It is further argued that there is nothing to assume innocence on the part of the petitioner and that he does not seem to be novice and ignorant of ground realities and should thus be shown no leniency.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders.

7. A perusal of the FIR shows that as per the allegation levelled, the person who was brandishing pistol is alleged to have taken the mobile. The prosecution has not disputed that the pistol in question was recovered from co-accused Monu. Hence, prima facie the allegation would suggest that the mobile handset in question was snatched by co-accused Monu himself.

8. Learned State counsel has further not been able to reflect to any evidence to establish that the mobile handset recovered from the petitioner happens to be the handset snatched from the complainant on the basis of investigation conducted.

9. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was enacted to amend the law relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and to protect the children in need of care by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, social reintegration by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of the matter in the best interest of children.

10. Section 2(13) defines child in conflict with law and Chapter IV deals with the procedure in relation to children in conflict with law. Section 12, thereof de