A juvenile in conflict with the law, even when tried as an adult, is entitled to the statutory right to bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would pose a danger or defeat the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. The appellant “Child In conflict with Law” (hereinafter referred to as the “CCL”) has filed the present appeal under Section-101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children), Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to challenge the order dated 28.10.2022, passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in case FIR No.775 dated 02.12.2020 under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC (Section 34 of IPC deleted and Section 25 of the Arms Act added later on), registered at Police Station Palla, Faridabad, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant/CCL was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The story of the prosecution, as projected in the report under Section 173 Cr.PC is as follows:-

3. As per the complainant Dilip Kumar, at about 06:30 PM on 02.12.2020, he was present in his house, he received a phone call from his neighbour Rohit son of Shiv Charan, who informed him that the certain boys had encircled his brother Mahabir in Budh Bazar, Surya Vihar and they were beating him and he should reach there at the earliest. On receiving the information, the complainant was going near Budh Bazar and Kartik, friend of Mahabir met him there and he informed the complainant that injuries had been caused to Mahabir with knife and he was shifted to Shivalik Hospital. After checking Mahabir, the doctors had referred him to B.K Hospital and they had taken him to QRG Hospital, near Neelam Bridge for treatment. After checking him, the doctors declared him dead. The complainant asked Kartik son of Tara Chand Sharma with regard to the quarrel and Kartik told him that at about 05:30 P.M., Suraj,the petitioner, Raunak, Hemant and Abhishek were playing with Mahabir and they had a fight there. Thereafter, Suraj along with Raunak, Hemant and Abhishek came in Budh Bazar and after reaching there, Suraj slapped him and Mahabir and thereafter, he had taken out the knife from his pocket and gave knife blows on the face and abdomen of Mahabir. When they had tried to save him, then Suraj also turned his knife towards them and he, Saurav and Manoj had gone from there by leaving Mahabir there only. The associates of Suraj also ran to catch them and he had gone to his house. After about 10/15 minutes, they saw that blood was oozing from the body of the Mahabir and Suraj and his associates had killed him with knife. With these broad allegations, the FIR in the present case was got registered by Dalip Kumar, complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/CCL vehemently argued that he was arrested in the present case on 07.12.2020. After completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr. PC has already been filed by the police. In the present case, vide the order dated 21.09.2021, Annexure A-3, the present appellant was ordered to be tried as an adult. While referring to the Section 12 of the “Act”, learned counsel submitted that the present appellant was entitled to bail in view of the said provision of law and the impugned order has been passed by completely overlooking the beneficial provisions of the said provision. He further contends that from a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, it appears that the intention of the legislature was to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and the bail can be declined only in such cases where reasonable grounds are there for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. In the present case, the present appellant was in custody for more than 02 years and 07 months and his rights were seriously prejudiced. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by Kartik, Sourav and Manoj. While referring to their testimonies on oath (Annexures A-