IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:21.01.2026 HARXXXX ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by :Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the complainant.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral) :

The instant appeal under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2015, hereinafter being referred to as ‘J.J Act’ has been filed against the order dated 26.09.2025, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’ passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’. By virtue of above mentioned order the application for bail moved by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Aggrieved of the above mentioned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the ground that the learned trial Court has believed the unreliable, inconsistent and inadmissible evidence adduced by the prosecution, and that merely on the basis of conjunctures and surmises, and without application of judicial mind, the impugned order has been passed.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that, that for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 140(3), 238(1), 3(5) of BNS, the FIR No.100 dated 18.02.2025 was lodged in Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat. The above mentioned FIR was lodged at the instance of ‘Debi Devi’, who had stated that her son namely ‘Lakshaya’ had left home on 17.02.2025 at 3.30 P.M and that she had received a whatsap message on her mobile phone and that the above said message was suggesting that the son had been kidnapped. The above named complainant had requested for tracing his son.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned complaint, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation when the dead body of the son of complainant was recovered the case was converted into a case for the commission of above mentioned offence under Section 302 IPC, and thereafter, the appellant who is a child-in-conflict with law, was taken into protective custody. 5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime and that in the present case there is no dispute qua the fact that at the time of commission of crime the appellant was below the age of 18 years, and therefore, he has a right for the benefit of bail as enshrined under Section 12 of the J.J Act. According to learned counsel for the appellant the above mentioned act provides that except the three conditions prescribed under the J.J Act, the benefit of bail cannot be denied to a child-in-conflict with law and that in the instant case the prosecution has not been able to prove that any of the exceptions carved out Section 12 of J.J.act, exists in the present case.

7. While claiming that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while declining the benefit of bail to the appellant has not properly taken into consideration the above mentioned statutory provisions, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the denial of benefit of bail to the appellant is not in conformity with the relevant law, and therefore, there is need for indulgence and interference in the impugned order. As per learned counsel for the appellant by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court the impugned order be set aside and the benefit of bail be accorded to the appellant.

8. The learned State counsel being assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to complainant, the instant case is a rare case, wherein the appellant, who is below the age of 18 years, has committed such a gruesome offence that the nature and gravity of that offence renders him ineligible