Manpreet Singh @ Manni vs Ut Of J&K & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 355 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Manpreet Singh @ Manni vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 14 July, 2025

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

Bail App No. 206/2024
CrlM No. 401/2025
                                                   Reserved on:   02.07.2025
                                                   Pronounced on: 14.07.2025


Manpreet Singh @ Manni                                         .....Appellant (s)
                        Through: Ms. Vasudha Sharma, Advocate.
q
                                 Mr. Danish Manhas, Advocate.
                  vs
UT of J&K & Ors.                                             ..... Respondent(s)
                        Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.

Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE


                                      JUDGMENT

01. Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 14.08.2024, passed by learned

Principal Sessions Judge (Children's Court), Samba ["the trial court"], vide which

his bail plea, under Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act" for short), in FIR No. 21/2022 for offences under

Sections 13/18/23/38 UA (P) Act, 8/21/22 NDPS Act, 3/25 Arms Act 14A

Foreigners Act and 3 Enemy Agents Ordinance SVT 2005, registered with Police

Station Samba, came to be declined.

02. The petitioner seeks emancipation on the predominant premise that

regardless of the gravity of offence, he being a juvenile/child in conflict with law

is entitled to be released on bail.

03. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of petition, it shall

be apt to have an overview of the background facts.

04. As factual narration would unfurl, on 06.02.2022, Inspector Jagmahender

Singh COY Commander of 48 BN BSF Samba lodged a written report to SHO

Police Station Samba, alleging inter alia that at about 02 00 hours the surveillance

grid of BOP Whaleback of 48 BN BSF observed suspicious movement of 03 to 04

persons from Pakistan side, approaching the international border from the side of

BP No. 59. At about 0220 hours, likely PAK Smugglers, who by then had taken

position on the IB track and started moving stealthily towards the B.S Fence after

crossing the IB. On reaching close the B.S Fence, the said PAK Smugglers laid a

plastic pipe of length approx. 12 feet and dia approx. 06 inches and started

inserting packets of suspected contraband through the said pipe towards the

Indian side. The Ambush Party led by Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Rolaniya, AC when

observed through the thermal side, mounted on his personal Weapon AK-47,

challenged the smugglers to surrender. However, one of the smugglers assumed

threatening position from across the fence and tried to point weapon towards the

challenging troops. Fearing imminent danger to life and Govt. Property, the AC

opened fire on the smugglers, which resulted in immediate neutralization of one

of the PAK smugglers on the spot. The remaining smugglers taking advantage of

the undulating ground and fog and tried to escape towards the Pakistan side, but

engaged by the other deployed troops simultaneously. Meanwhile, the entire area

was engulfed in thick fog, as a result whereof, the general visibility through

surveillance grid was hampered. The total of 140 rounds of 5.56 MM INSAS

ammunition and 112 rounds of 7.62 MM AK series were fired by the troops.

Later, on thorough search of the area, 3 dead bodies of PAK Smugglers were seen

lying in between the B.S Fence and the IB. 36 Packets of Narcotics likely to be

heroin, one pistol, one Magazine, 09 rounds of Pistol, PAK currency notes of the

denomination 5,00 x01, 500x 09, 100x01, 50x02 and 10x12 i.e. total PAK

Currency of Rs. 9,820/-, one bottle of PAK made Cough Syrup, 01 blue coloured

plastic pipe, 12 feet long and 06 inches Dia (approx.) and 01 small knife came to

be recovered from the place of occurrence. On the receipt of this report, the

aforesaid FIR came to be registered.

05. It surfaced during investigation that just after the incident on 06.02.2022,

two suspects, namely, Gurpreet Singh @ Billa and petitioner were found roaming

under suspicious circumstances near the border area. They were detained by

officials of Naka party of PP Amb Tali Samba. When they narrated inconsistent

stories on questioning, they were booked under Section 41 CrPC in case FIR No.

359/2021 under Section 457/380 IPC of P/S Samba. However, on 11.02.2022,

both of them revealed that they had come to Samba to receive the consignment of

Narcotics/Arms from their PAK based handlers. They were given the benefit of

169 CrPC in the aforesaid FIR and were arrested in the present case. On personal

search and disclosure of accused Gurpreet Singh @ Billa, 03 mobile phones, 01

laser light, one brand new black motor cycle R-15 Yamaha and a red coloured

large bag came to be recovered. Exhibits were sent to FSL Srinagar for the

extraction of incriminating digital data from the mobile phones. Later, the

investigation of the present case came to be transferred to State Investigating

Agency (SIA), J&K on 10.03.2022, endorsed on 01.04.2022.

06. It revealed during investigation by the SIA, that petitioner was actively

assisting his associates and participating in the activities of an organized Narco-

terror Gang, involved in the smuggling of Narcotic Drugs and Fire Arms from

Pakistan to Indian territory and the main Kingpin of this gang was code named

Rana, a resident of Pakistan, who was operating the gang with a motive to incite

subversive activities with the use of Narcotics as a terror currency. Accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Billa (A-1), was a major member of this Gang, which was led

by the said Pakistani kingpin Rana (A-5) and he used virtual numbers and highly

encrypted and sophisticated applications from his phones, which were installed

specifically for the purpose of executing this operation. A-1 was in direct contact

with A-5 on virtual mode, which came to be corroborated from the FSL report in

screen recordings, captured by A-1 in Hotel Om International Samba, where it

surfaced that he was on WhatsApp video call on his virtual number with Pakistani

handlers.

07. A-1 revealed during investigation that he provided cash of Rs. 2.00 Lacs in

Divine Motor Agency to purchase a new motor cycle, R-15 Yahama Black in

colour in the name of Gurpratap Singh @ Partap (A-3), who provided his Aadhar

card as ID poof for the purchase of said motorcycle. On questioning, A-1, failed

to provide the source of said cash of Rs. 2.00 lacs. The petitioner, during

investigation, identified a video featuring himself at Divine Motor Agency

carrying cash in a polythene bag and he also recognised and identified the

incriminating photos, screenshots and videos featuring himself along with A-1

and A-3 especially at Divine Motor Agency, Amritsar, from where they had

purchased the motorcycle for the execution of the task in question. As per the

prosecution case, A-1 and the petitioner were tasked by their PAK handlers to

execute the operation of collecting and transporting consignment of Narcotics and

weapons to Punjab based recipients.

08. Pertinently, on 28.07.2022, Camera Shots-cum-WhatsApp Chat

Identification Memo came to be prepared in the presence of PW Diwan Chand, a

receptionists-cum-room boy of Hotel Om International Samba. PW Diwan Chand,

during investigation, revealed that he gave mobile hotspot for internet

connectivity to A-1 on 29.01.2022, on the pretext that A-1 had no internet

connectivity due to pre-paid Punjab Based SIM-card. On establishing the

connectivity by means of Hotspot, provided by PW Diwan Chand, A-1 sent his

identity proof i.e. Aadhar Card number from his Whatsapp Number. Photographs

of the WhastAap chat between PW Diwan Chand and A-1, including the details of

the WhataAap account on which the witness had received the Aadhar Card from

A-1 were captured in the presence of Executive Magistrate, namely Sh. Ravinder

Kumar Sharma, Naib Tehsildar. Miran Sahib and independent witnesses PW 54,

PW 31 and PW 39.

09. PW Diwan Chand, receptionist-cum-room boy of Hotel Om International

Samba, during investigation, identified both A-1, who had booked a room in the

said Hotel on 29.01.2022 and also the petitioner, who later came to the Hotel on

05.02.2022. Accordingly, the investigating agency prepared the Photo

Identification Memo of PW- Diwan Chand in the presence of EMIC and PWs-54,

31 and 39. The Mobile phone of PW Diwan Chand also came to be seized and

sealed in the presence of Executive Magistrate Miran Sahib and statement of PW

Diwan Chand, came to be recorded in terms of Section 164 before JMIC, R.S

Pura.

10. It is pertinent to mention that it also transpired during investigation that on

04.02.2022, A-1 along with petitioner and A-3 had visited Divine Motor Agency

Putlighar, Amritsar, to purchase the motor bike. A-3 submitted his Aadhar Card

as his ID Proof, as per the sale letter record of the agency. The petitioner was seen

carrying cash in the said agency in one of the videos and a red bag was purchased

from Amritsar to receive/carry the consignments from IB Samba to Samba as per

the directions of his Pakistani handlers. The aforesaid motorcycle and the red bag

came to be recovered during investigation. It was also established during

investigation that many screen recordings were captured by A-1 in Hotel Om

International Samba, while he was on WhatsApp Video call with his Pakistani

handlers.

11. It is contention of the investigating agency that it has been established that

in the wee hours of 06.02.2022, 06 Kgs of Heroin along with weapons were

attempted to be smuggled. 03 PAK intruders were killed/neutralized by

surveillance guard of BOP Whaleback and one Pakistani intruder managed to

escape. The drug consignment was seized at IB and the petitioner along with A-1

were caught by the naka party near the vicinity of the scene of occurrence on the

same day. The digital evidences, corroborates the fact that they were in touch with

their PAK based handlers through virtual mode. The petitioner came to be

arrested along with co-accused A-1 Gurpreet Singh on the day of occurrence. He

along with A-1 were tasked to receive and transport the consignment from border

areas of Glar (Samba) for onward transportation to the intended recipients. He

participated and helped in arranging logistics like purchasing a bike from Divine

Motor Agency as surfaced in digital evidence. The petitioner, therefore, came to

be charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

12. Initially, the petitioner through his mother applied for bail before Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Samba on the ground of Juvenility. However,

the Magistrate vide order dated 03.04.2022, having regard to the report of the

Medical Board and the seriousness of the charge, declined to give the petitioner,

who was more than 17 years of age at the time of commission of offence, benefit

of being juvenile on the ground that he was mature enough to understand the pros-

cons of criminal occurrence and understand the legal consequences. As a result,

he was ordered to be treated as an adult for the purpose of criminal proceedings in

the Special court and his bail application came to be dismissed.

13. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for bail in the trial court

primarily on the grounds of false implication and that he was a child in conflict

with law.

14. Learned trial court, having regard to the case law cited at bar, though

concurred with the prime contention of the petitioner that even if a child is

transferred for trial as an adult, his bail application is to be entertained in terms of

Section 12 of the Act, but dismissed the bail plea on the ground that since he is a

resident of Punjab and occurrence took place within the jurisdiction of Police

Station Samba, it was sufficient to indicate that he was already in contact not only

with the local criminals but criminals from across the border and the proviso

attached to Section 12 of the Act has been provided for dealing with such

Juveniles only.

15. Leaned trial Court is of the view that proviso to Section 12 of the Act is a

caveat that such person cannot be released if there appear grounds to believe that

his release is likely to bring him into the association of any known criminal or

expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat

the ends of justice. Thus, the trial court is of the opinion that all the exceptions of

the proviso of Section 12 of the Act are applicable to the case of the petitioner,

because as per the charge-sheet, the petitioner was already in touch with the

Narco-teror gangs operating from across the border and there was likelihood that

if released, he may again come in association with said known criminals and

could be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and he was also

involved in heinous offences which have direct impact on the society.

16. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid observations of learned trial

Court inter alia on the grounds that merely because JJB Samba had held that he is

to be "tried as an adult", it does not mean or infer that a child in conflict with law

would ipso fact become an adult. According to the petitioner, it only postulates

that such a juvenile is to be treated differently in view of the heinous nature of the

offence alleged and consequent need for a stricter treatment of the offender, but

he still remains to be a juvenile/Child in conflict with law, to be governed by the

provisions of the Act, in view of the special needs of the child.

17. It is contended that a child in conflict with law is mandatorily to be released

on bail in view of Sub-Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act unless and until the

exception carved out in the proviso is made out.

18. It is contention of the petitioner that since the charge-sheet neither reveals

that he was ever in association of any known criminal nor reflects that he has ever

been involved in any other offence, therefore, there is no likelihood to bring him

into the association of any known criminal.

19. It is urged that since petitioner is lodged in the Observation Home RS.

Pura for the last about two and half years, his alleged contacts, if any, with any

known criminal have already fractured. It is also contention of the petitioner that

in case of his release on bail, he is not likely to be exposed to any moral, physical

or psychological danger because he is to be placed under the care and protection

of his family.

20. In so far as third exception of the proviso is concerned, it is urged that the

expression "defeat the ends of justice" prima facie means that if the

developmental and other socio-economic needs of a child requires that he be kept

in custody or his custody is necessary for his rehabilitation, care and protection,

only then his release would defeat the ends of justice but he cannot be kept in

continuous incarceration on the ground of gravity or heinousness of the offence.

According to the petitioner, he is in continuous custody of the Observation Home,

since the date of his arrest on 11.02.2022 i.e. for about two and half years and his

conduct and behaviour in the Rehabilitation Facility is also satisfactory, proper

and up to the mark.

21. The bail plea of the petitioner has been opposed on the other side by the UT

predominantly on the grounds, on the basis of which, his application for bail came

to be dismissed by the trial court.

22. Heard arguments and perused the file.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a host of decisions

rendered by different High Courts of the country including, Neeraj vs. State of

Haryana dated 16.08.2023, of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,

Shubham Suryavanshi @ Bablu Milind vs. The State of Maharashtra dated

21.10.2022, of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, "X" Juvenile vs. UT of

J&K dated 19.02.2024 of High Court of J&K and Ladakh, Rakesh Rai vs. The

State of Bihar dated 17.01.2025, of High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal

Appeal (SJ) No. 2154/2024, CCl „A‟ vs. State (NCT of Delhi); AIRONLINE

2020 DEL 1439, of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, X Juveline vs. State of

UP & Anr., dated 28.02.2023 of High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and X

(Minor) vs. State of U.P and Anr. dated 26.04.2023, of High Court of Judicature

of Allahabad, to reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of petition.

24. The Juvenile Justice Act came to be enacted with a laudable object to

ensure that all the basic needs of children are met through proper care, protection,

development, treatment, social integration by adopting a child friendly approach

in the adjudication and disposal of matters in their best interest and for their

rehabilitation through the processes provided under the Act and that their basic

human rights are protected. There is no quarrel to the statutory position of law

that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice

Act must adhere to the general principles of care and protection of children,

enumerated in Section 3 of the Act and that all decisions regarding a child in

conflict with law should be premised on the primary consideration that they are in

the best interest of the child and to help him to develop full potential.

25. However, it is pertinent to underline that offences under the Act have been

classified as Petty offences under Section 2 (45), punishable with maximum

imprisonment upto three years under the Penal Code or any other law for the time

being in force, Serious offences, punishable under the Penal Code or any other

law for the time being in force with imprisonment between 3 to 7 years, under

Section 2 (54) and Heinous offences under Section 2 (33), which include the

offences for which the minimum punishment under the Penal Code or any other

law for the time being in force is imprisonment for seven years or more. The Act

clearly differentiates between the offences in the aforesaid three categories. The

legislative intent behind the classification of offences, is thus loud and clear that

cases involving heinous offences are required to be dealt with circumspection and

sensitivity.

26. The petitioner has approached this Court for emancipation, primarily on the

ground that he being a child in conflict with law is entitled to be released on bail

as a matter of right, in terms of Section 12 of the Act, which reads as:-

12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law-

"(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2).......

(3).......

(4)........"

27. In terms of Section 12 of the Act a child in conflict with law, who is alleged

to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence shall be released on bail with

or without surety notwithstanding anything contained in CrPC. However, it is

subject to a rider that if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that his

release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose

him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the

ends of justice, he shall not be so released for the reasons to be recorded.

28. It is manifest from a plain reading of Section 12 of the Act that the

legislature did not intend that a child in conflict with law or a juvenile is entitled

to be released on bail, notwithstanding the other facts and circumstances of the

matter. In other words, it is clear from the proviso appended to Sub-Section 1 of

Section 12 that bail can be denied to a juvenile, if his case falls within any of the

three conditions enumerated therein.

29. Apart from the first two conditions regarding reasonable grounds for

believing that release on bail would bring the child in association with any known

criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger, bail can

be denied to the juvenile if his release would defeat the ends of justice. Since the

Act differentiates between the Petty offences, Serious offences and Heinous

offences, the expression "the ends of justice" would encompass factors like the

nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence, the methodology adopted, the

manner of the commission of the crime and impact on the society.

30. The petitioner, in the present case, is alleged to be part of a larger

conspiracy. During investigation, he identified a video of featuring himself at

Divine Motor Agency, carrying cash in a polythene bag and also recognized and

identified the incriminating photos, screen shots and videos featuring himself

along with his associates/co-accused, especially at Divine Motor Agency,

Amritsar, from where they purchased a new motor cycle for the execution of the

task given to him and co-accused by the PAK handlers to execute the operation of

collecting and transporting consignment of Narcotics and weapons to Punjab

based recipients.

31. It surfaced, during investigation that the petitioner and co-accused

Gurpreet Singh @ Billa, during execution of the said task, checked in a hotel, Om

International Samba. One of the prosecution witnesses, PW-Dewan Chand

Receptionist-cum-Room boy of the said hotel, during investigation, identified the

said co-accused Gurpreet Singh @ Billa who had booked a room in the said hotel

on 29.01.2022 and also the petitioner who came later to the hotel and met the co-

accused on 05.02.2022. The Investigating agency has obtained Whatsapp chat

between PW-Dewan Chand and co-accused Gurpreet Singh including the

Whatsapp account on which the said witness had received Adhar Card from co-

accused and prepared the identification memos and captured photographs in the

presence of Executive Magistrate PW-Ravinder Kumar Sharma Naib, Tehsildar,

Miran Sahib and independent witnesses, PWs 54, 31 and 39.

32. The motor cycle and the red bag in which the petitioner was seen carrying

cash in the Divine Motor Agency has also been recovered during investigation

and according to the investigating agency, it is the same motor cycle which has

been used by the petitioner and co-accused for execution of the work given to

them by their PAK handlers. There is prime facie sufficient digital, documentary

and ocular evidence against the petitioner that he was part of the conspiracy, a

close associate of co-accused Gurpreet Singh and he not only helped him in

arranging the logistics like purchasing a bike for execution of the task but

participated in the commission of the crime. The offences committed by him are

not only grievous in nature, but against the sovereignty and integrity of the

country. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner at the time of commission of

the alleged offences was more than 17 years of age. The manner in which the

offences are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and his associates

and the methodology adopted by them in arranging the logistics to PAK handlers

is sufficient to indicate that his conduct and the well-planned manner with which

he associated with co-accused persons are that of a matured skilled person.

Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the charge, the release of petitioner

would not only bring him in association of known criminals and expose him to

moral, physical and psychological danger but would defeat the ends of justice.

33. I am fortified in my opinion by a decision rendered by High Court of

Uttaranchal in X vs. State of Uttarkhand; 2024 SCC Online Utt 728, whereby

the bail plea of a school student came to be declined by the High Court. The

petitioner in the said case was accused of distributing obscene video of a 14 years

old girl, which allegedly drove the minor victim to commit suicide. Relevant

observation captured in Para 11 of the judgment reads as below-

"11. Having considered the social investigation report, the medical examination report, the report from the school, this Court is of the view that best interest of the child would be served if he is not granted bail. If he is released on bail, it would definitely defeat the ends of justice. This Court below has rightly rejected the bail application. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed."

34. The aforesaid judgment came to be assailed by the petitioner and

pertinently, Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere and upheld the aforesaid

judgment in X (Minor) through her Mother vs. State of Uttarakhand; SLP

(Crl.) Nos. 7097-7098/2024 decided on 20.05.2024.

35. Relevant excerpt of the Supreme Court verdict reads as below:-

"Having heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner at length and after carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court at this stage. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed."

36. In view of aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case law

relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable.

37. Narco-terrorism is no longer confined to drug-weapon smuggling. The use

of Narcotics as a terror currency and the cross-border smuggling of Narcotics and

terror activities have, of late, become a new front of proxy war, unleashed by the

adversaries from across the border. A dual strategy of sending across the drugs

and weapons is being employed by the enemy to threaten economic security of the

country, incite subversive activities and disrupt the social fabric. The petitioner is

allegedly found to be actively assisting and participating in the activities of an

organized Narco-terror module along with his associates. Therefore, he cannot be

allowed to take benefit of the beneficial legislation to defeat the ends of justice.

38. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed.

(Rajesh Sekhri) Judge

Jammu 14.07.2025 Abinash Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes