IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 27.10.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 Child-in-Conflict-with-Law ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG Haryana.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 24.12.2024, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for bail has been dismissed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Ambala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘JJB’, duly affirmed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ambala, by virtue of order dated 05.06.2025, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be a juvenile.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR pertaining to instant case, i.e. No.398 dated 25.09.2024 was registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(3), 351(3), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of the Arms Act, on the basis of statement made by Suman Devi. In her statement, the complainant stated that her husband, Amrik Singh, was an auto-rickshaw driver and that on 25.09.2024, at about 4:40 p.m., Avtar Singh and his friends, namely Jassu, Monu, and Galli @Allah, picked up a quarrel with her husband without any reason and assaulted him with bricks. As per complainant on receiving information about the incident, the complainant rushed to the spot and found her husband injured, having injury on his head. According to complainant thereafter, she, along with her brother-in-law ‘Lakha’ and nephew ‘Mangu’, first went to the Padav Police Station and then to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt., where Avtar Singh and his aforesaid companions, armed with sharp- edged weapons, again attacked Amrik Singh and inflicted injuries upon him. The complainant alleged that due to the grievous nature of the injuries, suffered by Amrik Singh, he was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh; but, he succumbed to his injuries on the way.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned information, formal FIR in this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation, the accused, involved in the commission of crime including the petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time of commission of crime, were taken into custody.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that in the present case, there is no dispute qua the fact that at the time of commission of crime, the petitioner was a juvenile, as his date of birth is 12.04.2007. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned JJB, vis-à-vis the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge have failed to appreciate the fact that juvenile has got an absolute right to seek bail, and that the abovementioned benefit can be declined only in three circumstances, enshrined under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the grounds enshrined under Section-12 of the aforesaid Act, which could have debarred the petitioner from the benefit of bail, stands satisfied in the present case. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the learned JJB as well as the learned ASJ have denied the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders, being an outcome of non-application of judicial mind, deserve to be set aside, and therefore, by accepting the present petition, the abovementioned orders may be set aside, and the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that in the present case, the learned Juvenile Justice Board, vis-à-vis learned Additional Sessions