IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1192-2025 (O&M)

RESERVED ON : 29.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 08.09.2025 CHILD-IN-CONFLICT-WITH-LAW .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J.

1. An application for bail moved on behalf of Child-in-Conflict- with-Law, hereinafter being referred to as ‘CCL’, has been dismissed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kapurthala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘JJB’, vide order dated 17.01.2025. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order of rejection of bail application of CCL, when appeal was preferred by CCL before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kapurthala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’, the said appeal failed to find favour of learned Appellate Court, and therefore, dismissed on 24.02.2025.

2. Aggrieved of abovementioned both the orders, the present revision petition has been preferred by the CCL, on the ground that learned JJB as well as learned Appellate Court have committed an error of judgment and have failed to appreciate that the petitioner, being a juvenile, has no criminal antecedents, and therefore, was entitled for the bail. By virtue of this revision petition, the petitioner is seeking for the setting aside of both the orders referred to above, and benefit of bail to the petitioner.

3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR No.82 dated 29.12.2024 under Sections 21(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’, and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, Punjab, came into being on 29.12.2024 when at a check-point, police signaled a car to stop, for the purpose of checking, and the person sitting on the rear seat opened the window of the car and threw one transparent bag, and tried to run away. According to prosecution, on the basis of suspicion, the abovesaid person, namely Gurtej Singh @Guri, was intercepted by the police and apprehended. It was found that in the bag thrown by him, there was 700 gms of heroin. It is the case of the prosecution that other two occupants of the car were Onkar Singh and CCL. The prosecution is further alleging that on completion of formalities with regard to search and seizure of the person of accused, they were arrested, whereas the CCL was taken into protective and safe custody. When the accused were interrogated, the accused nominated the petitioner. According to prosecution, when the petitioner was arrested by the police, a country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from his possession.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an error of judgment has been committed by the learned JJB, vis-à-vis, learned Appellate Court, and that without properly analyzing that confinement of petitioner in safe custody is having a very negative impact on his psychology, merely on the basis of apprehension that if he released from custody, he may again be used by unscrupulous elements for smuggling of narcotics or that it would not be conducive to the well being of juvenile. As per learned counsel for the petitioner without any legal basis, it has been observed that if the petitioner is allowed to join the same society again which has shown dreadful results, it would be detrimental to the growth of petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this inference has wrongly been drawn by both the Courts that if released on bail, the CCL would come in association with known criminal, and that such release would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has got a right under Section-12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for being released on bail and the denial of abovementioned