ORAL ORDER

1. This application has been filed by the applicant-mother of the child in conflict with law through his mother as a guardian under Sections 12 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereainafter referred to in short as “the J.J. Act) challenging the legality and the propriety of the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, (for short “the J.J. Board”) Jamnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.806 of 2024 and order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2024.

2. The present application has been preferred for the purpose of obtaining Regular Bail in connection with First Information Report being I–CR No.11202009240528 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section

135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. The complainant’s uncle namely Harunbahi Kasambhai Paleja was practicing advocate who was appearing to oppose bail applications of Razak Nurmamad Saicha, Akhtar Anvar Chamadia and Afaroj Taib Chamadia. It was alleged that on the date of hearing of bail application, he was threatened by the accused and asked to withdraw from the case. It is further alleged that under the criminal conspiracy, about seven co-accused along with present child in conflict with law had form association with an intention to kill the lawyer and allegedly inflicted serious injuries on the head and body resulting to his death.

4. Heard Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.R. J. Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent – State.

5. Rule. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. V. Raju with learned advocate Mr.R. J. Vyas for the applicant has submitted that the the role of present child in conflict with law is not specified in the complaint. Only act attributed is being in company of other co-accused and further the act ascribed is of having recce of the deceased and submitted that the concerned courts below were required to consider the bail application of the child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the JJ Act and was required to deal with the facts of the case to note the specific role of the child in conflict with law. Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board has observed that the release of the child in conflict with law would amount to moral, physical and psychological danger but has not specified as to how his release on bail would effect him. The heinous crime does not attribute the role of the child in conflict with law while the special investigation report by the Probation Officer has been noted to consider that the crime was committed by the child in conflict with law because he was neglected by his parents and that has got negative impact of his parents upon the child. Mr. Raju, learned Senior Advocate submitted that one of the criteria weigh with both the courts was that father of the child is one of the co-accused in the present crime and has noted that the release of the child in conflict with law would put him in association of known criminals but the judge has failed to expressively deal with the observation as to how he would fall in company of known criminals where the case is yet to be decided against the father and the uncle.

7. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP with Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the complainant submitted that specific act of the juvenile is required to be assessed since it was he who had continuously observed the movement of the deceased who was a lawyer. His presence was noted along with the co-accused from the of CDR analysis. He was also present when the deceased was beaten by the accused and as per the prosecution cas