A.F.R.

Reserved on 03.01.2023

Delivered on 09.02.2023

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 11542 of 2022

Applicant :- Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father, District Prayagraj

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak,Shashank Shekhar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Shankar Pandey

Hon'ble Mrs. 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 F.I.R./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2000 shall be repealed as the need for comprehensive legislation was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 re-

integration 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, re-

integration, 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 obscur