Bail to child in conflict with law under Section 12 JJ Act is mandatory unless proviso exceptions (association with criminals, exposure to danger, defeat justice) apply with recorded reasonable grounds based on evidence; heinous offence alone insufficient.

Judgment :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner­ ABC, Child in Conflict with Law, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCL’) has filed the present criminal revision petition, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’), read with Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), with a prayer to set aside the order, dated 24.03.2025, Annexure P­2, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Una (hereinafter referred to as the JJB’) and Order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P­3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Children’s Court) Una, District Una (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’), with a prayer to release the petitioner on bail, in a case arising out of FIR No.59/2025, dated 26.02.2025, under Sections 140(3), 103 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ’).

2. According to the applicant, she is innocent person and has falsely been shown to be involved in the crime in question. The allegations against her are that she, along with Manpreet Singh, Vansh Sharma, Keshav Thakur, Shivam @ Chhotia and Ritik and others had beaten to death to Harpreet Singh @ Jiya.

3. During investigation, the date of birth of the CCL was found to be 25.03.2007. Thereafter, she was produced before the Principal Magistrate, JJB, from where, she was ordered to be sent to Correctional Home, Samoor Kalan on 01.02.2025.

4. Thereafter, the CCL has moved an application for bail before the JJB, which was contested by the prosecution, by taking the plea that the CCL is very clever person and has committed a heinous crime and there is lot of resentment in the society on account of the said crime. As such, the application has been dismissed on 24.03.2025.

5. Against the said order, the CCL has preferred the appeal before the learned appellate Court, which has also been dismissed, vide order dated 17.05.2025. Now, the CCL is before this Court, by way of the present criminal revision petition.

6. Investigation, in the present case, is complete. Report against the CCL has been presented before the JJB and inquiry has been initiated, against the CCL, as per Section 15 of the JJ Act.

7. The JJB, on the basis of the preliminary assessment, has submitted the case to the appellate Court, vide order dated 28.06.2025, by holding that the trial of CCL is to be conducted, as an adult. The said order has been assailed before the appellate Court, which was set aside, vide order dated 12.09.2025 and the case was remanded back to the JJB, for fresh decision.

8. Highlighting the fact that the object of the bail is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon, a prayer has been made that the order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P­2) passed by the learned JJB, as upheld by the learned appellate Court, vide order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P­3) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same may kindly be set aside and the CCL may kindly be released, on bail, as there is nothing on the file to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances, as provided under Section 12 of the JJ Act and according to the learned counsel for the CCL, in the absence of any exceptional circumsta