JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

1. It appears that name of the applicant-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of applicant escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned section of Registry is directed to remove the name of the applicant-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on official website and represent him as Minor ‘X’ through his Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj.

2. Heard Sri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State on the point of maintainability of this anticipatory bail application.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of minor ‘X’ through his guardian/father seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0362 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj.

4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant (who admittedly is a minor) that a minor cannot be deprived of protection available under Section 438 Cr.P.C. just because he is not an adult. The contention is ardently opposed by the State.

5. Before coming into effect of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was applicable. In the statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the new Act of 2015, it is mentioned that numerous changes were required in the existing Act of 2000 to address several issues. It was proposed that the existing Act of 2000 shall be repealed as the need for comprehensive legislation was felt intensely inter-alia to provide for general principles of care and protection; the procedure to be applied; rehabilitation and social reintegration measures for such children, adoption of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children, and offences committed against children. It was expected that the legislation would thus ensure proper care, protection, development, treatment and social re-integration of children in difficult circumstance by adopting a child-friendly approach keeping in view the best interest of the child. The statement of objects and reasons clearly indicate that the legislature intended to provide for exhaustive statutory provisions to deal with children involved in offences with certain far reaching object in mind while carefully treading a path illuminated by the principle of best interest of the child.

6. Section 1(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 contains a non-obstante clause and is being reproduced for ready reference as below:

“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all matters concerning children in need of care and protection and children in conflict with law, including:

(i) apprehension, detention, prosecution, penalty or imprisonment, rehabilitation and social re-integration of children in conflict with law.

(ii) procedures and decisions or orders relating to rehabilitation, adoption, reintegration, and restoration of children in need of care and protection.”

Besides using the phrase “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law” Section 1 (4) uses two more phrases which are meaningful in present context. They are “all matters” concerning the child in conflict with law and secondly the word “including” apprehension, detention, prosecution, penalty or imprisonment rehabilitation and social investigation of children in conflict with law. The provisions are clear, plain and free from obscurity. The unmistakable conclusion which can be drawn is that this Act seeks to deal exhaustively with all matters concerning child offenders including their apprehension, detention and prosecution. No doubt the broader objective of the Act is to bring back the child in main stream of the society while applying a reformative approach without forgetting the need to balance the demands of justice of the victim and the society at large. Lets briefly see how this objective is sought to be