[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rxxxx vs State Of Haryana And Another on 22 April, 2026
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.16867 of 2026
Date of decision: 22.04.2026
RXXX (minor) through his father
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate (joined through VC)
and Mr. Yashvardhan Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Nafees Ahmad Khan, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. This is the first petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 439 Cr.P.C.), for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner/child in conflict with law in case FIR
No.401 dated 24.11.2025, registered under Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 351(3) BNS, at
Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh.
2. Briefly stated, as per the allegations in the FIR, respondent
No.2/complainant (mother of the victim) approached the Police Station on
24.11.2025 and submitted a written complaint stating that on 20.11.2025, in
authenticity of this order/judgment
the afternoon, her minor son aged about 10 years had gone out for playing
but did not return home. Upon searching for him, at about 1:30 PM, she
found him lying in an unconscious condition in a plot near her house with
blood stains on his clothes. After some time, when the child regained
consciousness, she took him to a village doctor, who informed her that
sexual assault had been committed upon him. It is further alleged that upon
being asked, the child disclosed that the petitioner/child in conflict with law
had taken him to his house on the pretext that his mother was calling him
and thereafter, committed sexual act upon him, due to which, he became
unconscious, and thereafter he was left in a vacant plot. It is also alleged
that when the complainant tried to inform the police, the family members
of the petitioner intervened, snatched her mobile phone and threatened her
with dire consequences in case she reported the matter. Thereafter, the child
in conflict with law moved an application for grant of regular bail under
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, which came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/
Fast Track Special Court for trial of such offences under POCSO Act, Nuh,
vide order dated 10.03.2026. While declining the relief, it was observed by
the trial Court that the CCL is more than 16 years of age and has been sent
to the Special Court for trial as an adult. It was further observed that the
allegations levelled against the CCL are grave and serious in nature and
none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far in the case.
The Court also took into consideration that if the child in conflict with law
is released on bail, there is a likelihood of his coming into association with
criminals, which may expose him to moral and physical danger and there is
authenticity of this order/judgment
also a possibility of his committing a similar offence again. The trial Court,
while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in Mr. X (Minor) vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Revision
No.1036 of 2022, decided on 21.10.2022, observed that bail to a juvenile is
not to be granted as a matter of course in every case and can be denied if
the release would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, it was concluded
that in case the appellant/CCL is released on bail, the ends of justice would
be defeated, and thus, the bail application was dismissed.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is a child in conflict with law and is entitled to the benefit of
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, wherein grant of bail is the rule and denial is an exception,
permissible only under the specific contingencies provided therein. It is
argued that none of the conditions as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act
are attracted in the present case, as there are no reasonable grounds to
believe that release of the petitioner would bring him into association with
any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological
danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further
contended that learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the bail
application by primarily relying upon the gravity of the allegations, which
is not a relevant consideration under Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted
that the trial Court has failed to record any satisfaction based on cogent
material that the case falls within the exceptions carved out under Section
12 of the Act, and thus, the impugned order suffers from illegality. Learned
counsel further submits that there is an unexplained delay of about four
authenticity of this order/judgment
days in lodging the FIR, which creates a serious doubt over the prosecution
version. It is also argued that the investigation in the present case already
stands completed and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner in custody. The petitioner has been in custody since
25.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It is
further contended that the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, merely proceeds on the
assumption that release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice,
without referring to any material on record to substantiate such conclusion.
The findings recorded by the trial Court that the allegations are grave and
serious and that the petitioner may come into association with criminals are
stated to be conjectural and not based on any evidence. Reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
in Pankaj vs. State of Haryana, 2012(4) PLR 266, wherein it has been held
that the gravity of offence cannot be made a ground for rejecting bail to a
juvenile under Section 12 of the Act. Further reliance has also been placed
upon Satbir vs. State of Haryana, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 621, wherein it
has been held by this Court that in the absence of any material indicating
that release of the juvenile would fall within the exceptions under Section
12 of the Act, denial of bail is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted
that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and there is no likelihood
of his absconding, and he undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by
this Court. It is thus prayed that the petitioner be released on bail, as
continued detention would serve no useful purpose.
4. A status report has been filed on behalf of the State along with
authenticity of this order/judgment
the custody certificate, which reflects that the petitioner/child in conflict
with law has remained in custody for a period of four months and twenty-
six days.
5. Mr. Nafeez Ahmad Khan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the
complainant and assisted learned State counsel.
6. Learned State counsel, duly assisted by counsel for the
complainant, has opposed the present petition and contended that the
allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. It is
submitted that the challan has already been presented before the Juvenile
Justice Board, Nuh, and thereafter the case has been committed to the
Children's Court for trial of the petitioner as an adult. Charges have already
been framed and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. It is
further contended that none of the prosecution witnesses has been
examined so far and there are as many as 21 prosecution witnesses cited in
the present case. It is further argued that the petitioner is involved in a
serious offence and in case he is released on bail, there is every likelihood
that he may tamper with the evidence and influence the material witnesses.
It is also contended that the petitioner may abscond and evade the process
of law, which would ultimately delay the trial. On these grounds, it is
prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. The petitioner has filed the present regular bail peition.
However, as per Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, the remedy against an order passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court declining bail is by
way of an appeal. In the present case, instead of availing the statutory
authenticity of this order/judgment
remedy of appeal, the petitioner has chosen to file the present petition
seeking regular bail.
8. Nevertheless, it is a settled proposition of law that the
nomenclature of a petition is not decisive and the Court can treat the
petition in accordance with the substance of the relief sought. Since the
present petition essentially assails the order dated 10.03.2026, whereby bail
has been declined to the child in conflict with law, the same is treated as an
appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act against the said order
and is being considered on merits accordingly.
9. While examining the merits of the present matter, it is apposite
to refer to the scheme of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The said provision mandates that when a
person, who is apparently a child and alleged to be in conflict with law, is
apprehended or brought before the Board, such person shall be released on
bail with or without surety notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. The
proviso to Section 12 of the Act carves out limited exceptions to the said
rule, where there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of
such child is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice. It is thus evident that grant of bail to a child
in conflict with law is the rule and denial is an exception, which must be
founded on reasonable grounds supported by material on record.
10. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order dated
10.03.2026 reveals that learned trial Court has declined bail to the
authenticity of this order/judgment
petitioner primarily by observing that the allegations are grave and serious
in nature, that none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and
that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may come into association
with criminals and may again commit such type of offence. However, there
is no discussion in the impugned order as to any material on record which
would justify such conclusions. The findings recorded by the trial Court are
general in nature and merely reproduce the language of the exceptions
contained in the proviso to Section 12 without demonstrating how the case
of the petitioner falls within any of those exceptions.
11. It is also evident that learned trial Court has been swayed by
the gravity of the allegations, which, by itself, is not a relevant
consideration under Section 12 of the Act. The statute does not contemplate
denial of bail merely on the seriousness of the offence alleged, unless the
case squarely falls within the exceptions provided in the proviso. Further,
though reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in Mr. X (Minor) vs. State of U.P. and another
(supra), the same has been applied in a mechanical manner. The trial Court
has failed to record any cogent reasoning or refer to any specific material to
show as to how release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice in
the facts of the present case. No material has been pointed out to indicate
that the petitioner is likely to come into association with any known
criminal, nor is there anything on record to suggest that his release would
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Similarly, the
observation that release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice is
not supported by any substantive reasoning. Such conclusions, in the
authenticity of this order/judgment
absence of supporting material, cannot be sustained in law.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court for trial of such
offences under POCSO Act, Nuh, suffers from material illegality and non-
application of mind, as the mandate of Section 12 of the Act has not been
properly appreciated.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 10.03.2026 is hereby set-aside and the petitioner/child in
conflict with law is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court/Board and subject to such conditions as
may be deemed appropriate to ensure his presence during trial and to
safeguard the interest of justice.
14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.04.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
