IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :16.09.2025 Pronounced on:22.09.2025.

SXXXX ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by :Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) :

An application seeking for bail, moved by the revisionist-

petitioner, who is a child-in-conflict-with-law, hereinafter being referred as petitioner only, has been dismissed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Panipat. The appeal preferred by he petitioner against the order of Juvenile Justice Board has failed to find favour of learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, aggrieved of both the above mentioned orders this revision petition has been preferred.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts emerging from record are that the FIR No.375 dated 02.10.2023, under Sections 302, 201, 365, 34 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station, Sector 13-17, Panipat, came into being in view of a complaint submitted by Rajpal, who stated that his son, was namely Saurabh Nagpal, had left home at 12.00 P.M on

01.10.2023 and that he was missing since then. According to complainant, mobile phone of his son, too, was switched off. It has been projected by the prosecution that in view of above mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case, for the commission of offence under Section 365 IPC was lodged and the investigation taken up.

3. According to prosecution on 05.10.2023 the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement and disclosed to the Investigating Officer that his son had been killed by the petitioner & his accomplice, and that the body of his son was lying in sugar cane fields in village Babail, District Panipat. As per prosecution, in response to above mentioned supplementary statement, the spot was inspected by the Investigating Officer, the dead body of deceased was recovered and necessary formalities as enshrined under Section 174 Cr.P.C. conducted. The prosecution has further alleged that in view of above mentioned development the FIR was converted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the petitioner was taken into protective detention whereas his co-accused Rachit who was major was duly arrested. The investigation in this case has already been concluded and the challans filed.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for a period of almost two years and that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Appellate Court have committed an error of judgment when they failed to appreciate the fact that juvenile has a special right for bail and that unless the conditions, as enshrined under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2015 are fulfilled, the law prescribes that benefit of bail can not be denied to the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, vis-a-vis the learned Appellate Court, have wrongly observed that if the petitioner is released on bail it may bring him in association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger, and that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vis-a-vis Appellate Court makes it abundantly clear that the learned Juvenile Justice Board vis-a-vis Appellate Court had not procured any social investigation report and merely on the basis of unfounded plea of the prosecution, on the basis of whims and fancies, it has been observed that the release of petitioner, on bail, would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. According to learned counsel for the