221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2096-2024 Date of Decision:- 06.02.2025 Child in conflict with law “VI” (name withheld to protect his identity)

through his father Mukesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.(Oral)

1. Petitioner/Child in conflict with law (for short ‘CCL’) has filed present criminal revision against impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridabad as well as judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, (Exercising the Power of Children Court), Faridabad, dismissing the second bail application filed by CCL.

2. As per the facts of case, complainant who is father of victim gave his statement that on 16.04.2024 at about 08:00 pm, one boy tried to give mobile phone to his daughter at the gate of his house. It was told that same was given by CCL who was living in their neighbourhood. His daughter told her mother that when they used to go out for work and on her way to school, said CCL used to threatened her and asked her to do wrong acts. On 23.03.2024, he took her to the house of his friend Deepak and committed wrong act with her and she was told not to talk about it with anyone. It was further disclosed that in their absence, said CCL used to take her in a park. With these allegations, present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner/CCL argued that facts of the case and points raised before the Court were not rightly considered by the Courts below. Bail application was filed under Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 on the ground that on 16.04.2024, petitioner was present at shop of his employer Parveen Kumar situated in Street No. 2, Bhood Colony, Heera Mandir Gali, Old Faridabad. He was lifted from there forcibly by police officials. No offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act is made out nor there is any allegation of criminal intimidation. Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Exercising the Power of Children Court), Faridabad failed to consider that petitioner/CCL was minor. There was no reason to deny bail to him under the provisions of Section 12 of POCSO Act. Case is at initial stage. Preliminary assessment is yet to be done whether petitioner will be tried as a juvenile or an adult. Challan was presented and thereafter, offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act was deleted and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act was added. Without passing reasoned order, bail application of petitioner/CCL was wrongly declined by Juvenile Justice Board and criminal appeal filed against impugned order dated 09.09.2024 was also wrongly declined by learned Appellate Court without appreciating facts and provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. It is submitted that impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board as well as judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, (Exercising the Power of Children Court), Faridabad are liable to be set aside and petitioner/CCL may be granted regular bail. Court may impose conditions which said petitioner/CCL will abide by.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing State opposed bail petition filed by petitioner/CCL. It is pointed out that there are specific serious allegations against petitioner/CCL. There is every likelihood that he will interfere with trial in this case by approaching the minor victim and he may further expose himself to other wrongful activities. Facts of case were rightly considered by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridabad and regular bail petition was rightly declined by passing reasoned order dated 09.09.2024 and appeal was also rig