IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: SEPTEMBER 11, 2025 DATE OF DECISION:SEPTEMBER 23, 2025 Child in Conflict with law ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. AG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.

The minor accused-revisionist/Child in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as “CCL”) has challenged the order dated March 19, 2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appeal filed by the CCL against the order dated February 07, 2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as “the JJB”) rejecting his bail in FIR No.228 of 10.11.2022 under Sections 302, 307,148,149,120-B,201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”), Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 16,18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the UAPA”), has been dismissed.

2. The Principal Magistrate, JJB, dismissed the CCL’s application for bail and the said order was not interfered with by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, keeping in mind the interests of the CCL. The CCL has challenged the impugned order dated March 19, 2024 by way of the instant criminal revision.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist argues that although it has been alleged that the accused-revisionist was involved in unlawful activities under the UAPA, no recovery, at all, was made from him and only bald allegations with regard to his association with a notorious gang has been alleged. No relevant material was collected by the prosecution to link the CCL with the commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA. The relevant evidence on record was not considered by the JJB and the Sessions Judge, Faridkot given the fact that the CCL was enrolled with SAI Academy in Hisar and the mother of CCL specifically assured the Court that her child was in the said academy on the date and time of the crime.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist further submits that the JJB and the Sessions Court erred in holding that since the CCL participated in the commission of offences by being associated with the notorious Goldy Brar’s gang, he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger at the hands of the members of the rival gang, if enlarged on bail. It is vehemently contended that if accused-revisionist is kept in the observation home, he is more likely to be exposed to moral, physical and physiological danger by coming into contact with other children who are in conflict with law. Furthermore, it is submitted that only 01 out of 105 prosecution witnesses have been examined despite passage of almost three years. Therefore, any further incarceration would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1755, wherein it has been held that long custody by itself would entitle the accused being tried under UAPA to the grant of bail by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist further submits that under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2015 Act”), even if the JJB was satisfied that the CCL (being a child below the age of 16 years) had committed a “heinous” offence, still he could be sent to a ‘special home’ or a ‘place of safety’ for a period not exceeding three years for his reformation, counselling, skill development, psychiatric support etc. The accused-revisionist has already been detained in a speci