2026:HHC:1505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No. : 665 of 2025
Reserved on : 01
st
January, 2026
Decided on : 06
th
January, 2026
ABC (Juvenile) …Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
1
Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.
For the respondent :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. Mohinder
Zharaick, Additional Advocates
General with Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge
PetitionerABC, Child in Conflict with Law,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCL’) has filed the present
criminal revision petition, under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JJ Act’), read with
Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), with a
prayer to set aside the order, dated 24.03.2025, Annexure
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:1505
P2, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Una (hereinafter
referred to as the JJB’) and Order dated 17.05.2025
(Annexure P3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions
Judge (Children’s Court) Una, District Una (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the appellate Court’), with a prayer to release
the petitioner on bail, in a case arising out of FIR
No.59/2025, dated 26.02.2025, under Sections 140(3), 103
and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the BNS’).
2. According to the applicant, she is innocent
person and has falsely been shown to be involved in the
crime in question. The allegations against her are that
she, along with Manpreet Singh, Vansh Sharma, Keshav
Thakur, Shivam @ Chhotia and Ritik and others had
beaten to death to Harpreet Singh @ Jiya.
3. During investigation, the date of birth of the
CCL was found to be 25.03.2007. Thereafter, she was
produced before the Principal Magistrate, JJB, from where,
she was ordered to be sent to Correctional Home, Samoor
Kalan on 01.02.2025.
3 2026:HHC:1505
4. Thereafter, the CCL has moved an application
for bail before the JJB, which was contested by the
prosecution, by taking the plea that the CCL is very clever
person and has committed a heinous crime and there is lot
of resentment in the society on account of the said crime.
As such, the application has been dismissed on
24.03.2025.
5. Against the said order, the CCL has preferred
the appeal before the learned appellate Court, which has
also been dismissed, vide order dated 17.05.2025. Now,
the CCL is before this Court, by way of the present criminal
revision petition.
6. Investigation, in the present case, is complete.
Report against the CCL has been presented before the JJB
and inquiry has been initiated, against the CCL, as per
Section 15 of the JJ Act.
7. The JJB, on the basis of the preliminary
assessment, has submitted the case to the appellate Court,
vide order dated 28.06.2025, by holding that the trial of
CCL is to be conducted, as an adult. The said order has
been assailed before the appellate Court, which was set
4 2026:HHC:1505
aside, vide order dated 12.09.2025 and the case was
remanded back to the JJB, for fresh decision.
8. Highlighting the fact that the object of the bail
is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of
liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be
required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial
when called upon, a prayer has been made that the order
dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P2) passed by the learned
JJB, as upheld by the learned appellate Court, vide order
dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P3) is not sustainable in the
eyes of law and the same may kindly be set aside and the
CCL may kindly be released, on bail, as there is nothing on
the file to demonstrate that there are exceptional
circumstances, as provided under Section 12 of the JJ Act
and according to the learned counsel for the CCL, in the
absence of any exceptional circumstance, the relief, as
claimed, in the criminal revision petition, cannot be denied
to her.
9. Per contra, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr.
Mohinder Zhariack, learned Additional Advocates General,
assisted by Ms. Ranjna Patial, learned Deputy Advocate
5 2026:HHC:1505
General, have supported the order, passed by the appellate
Court, as, according to them, the involvement of the CCL
has been found, in a heinous offence. As such, a prayer
has been made to dismiss the petition.
10. When put to notice, the police has filed the
status report, disclosing therein, that on the intervening
night of 25
th
and 26
th
February, 2025, complainant
Niranjan Singh, along with other villagers appeared before
the police and moved a complaint that from 23.02.2025,
his son Hardeep Singh @ Jiya has not returned back to
home and his mobile No.8580714833, is also found to be
switched off, upon which, rapat No.7, dated 26.02.2025,
regarding his missing was lodged.
10.1. Thereafter, said Niranjan Singh, during day
time, again appeared before the police and shown a video
from his mobile phone, showing two young men beating his
son Hardeep @ Jiya, on the rear seat of the car and from
the front seat their activities were being videographed and
from driving seat voice of one person is being heard. In the
said video, blood was found to be oozing out from the
shoulder of Hardeep Singh @ Jiya. He has identified the
6 2026:HHC:1505
persons beating his son, as Vansh @ Bantu and Manpreet
Singh @ Manni.
10.2. On the basis of the above facts, the
complainant has moved a complaint, disclosing therein,
that his son was kidnapped by few boys on 23.02.2025
and a video was sent to the mobile of one Keshav, after
viewing the same, he came to know about the fact that his
son was with Manpreet Singh, Vansh and CCL. According
to him, these persons had injured his son and
whereabouts of his son are not known to him.
10.3. According to the complainant, in the
conspiracy, Manpreet Singh, Vansh Sharma, CCL, Keshav
Thakur, Shivam @ Chhotiya, Ritik and others are involved,
as such, he has prayed that action be taken against them.
11. On the basis of the above fact, the police
registered the FIR, in question, and criminal machinery
swung into motion.
12. During investigation, CDR, CAF and Tower
Locations of the mobile phones of CCL, Vansh and
Manpreet Singh were obtained. When, the CDR and tower
locations were analyzed, it was found that CCL was in
7 2026:HHC:1505
touch with deceased and accused Vansh from 19.02.2025,
whereas, accused Vansh @ Bantu, was in constant touch
with accused Manpreet Singh @ Manni and Manpreet
Singh @ Manni was in touch with Taranjeet Singh. As
such, CDR and Tower location of mobile No.8353086770
of Taranjeet Singh was obtained.
13. As per the CDRs of the mobile phone of
deceased, on 23.02.2025, at about 9.01 p.m., his phone
was found to be switched off at Baba Bedi Kila Una, at that
time the Tower location of CCL was at Kila Baba Bedi
Sahib, Una. As per the CDR, on 23.02.2025, the location
of accused Manpreet Singh, and Taranjeet Singh was
found at Jol Upper Arniyala, from 10.06 p.m. to 11.32
p.m., where the mobile phone of deceased was switched off.
Thereafter, CCL was found in regular contact with accused
Vansh.
14. On the basis of the investigation, the police filed
chargesheet against the accused persons, including the
CCL.
15. Perusal of the record shows that the JJB has
declined the relief to the CCL, only on the ground that she
8 2026:HHC:1505
is involved in a heinous offence and investigation is still in
progress. Relevant paragraph 9 of the order dated
24.03.2025, is reproduced as under:
“9.It is imperative to recognize that the
alleged offence committed by the juvenile is of a
grave and heinous nature. The investigation is
still in progress and there is a need to ensure
both t
he security of the juvenile and the integrity of
the investigative process. Moreover, considering
the unrest in society and the seriousness of the
crime, it is crucial to maintain a protective
approach toward the juvenile while allowing the
investigation to proceed efficiently.”
16. The learned appellate Court has also declined
the relief, highlighting the report of the police, in which, it
has been mentioned that there is unrest in the society
about the seriousness of the crime committed by the CCL
and other accused.
17. In this factual background, the material
question, which arises for determination before this Court
is about the fact whether the ground ‘heinous crime’ is
sufficient to decline the relief to the applicant, as done by
the learned JJB.
18. As stated above, the bail application of CCL was
dismissed. In this regard, it is apt for this Court to
9 2026:HHC:1505
reproduce the provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act, as
under:
“Section 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 available 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 persons 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) When such person having been apprehended is
not released on bail under subsection (1) by the
officerincharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home 1[or a place of safety, as the case
may be] in such manner as may be prescribed until
the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under
subsection (1) by the Board, it shall make an order
sending him to an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be, for such period during
the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as
may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to
fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days
of the bail order, such child shall be produced before
the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.
10 2026:HHC:1505
19. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has used the
word ‘shall’ in Section 12(1) of the JJ Act. The use of word
‘shall’ by the Legislature, in its wisdom, raises the
presumption that a particular provision is mandatory.
20. As per provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the
JJB is under the legal obligation to release the CCL with or
without surety. However, as per the latter part of Section
12(1) of the Act, certain circumstances have been provided,
under which, there is prohibition for releasing the CCL on
bail. Those grounds are : (a) that the release is likely to
bring him into association with any known criminal; (b)
that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical, or
psychological danger and (c) that release of the juvenile is
in conflict with law, would defeat the ends of justice.
21. Merely, reiterating the above three grounds do
not fulfill the ingredients of the term ‘reasonable grounds’,
as from the language of Section 12 of the Act, it appears
that intention of the Legislature is to grant bail to the CCL,
irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence, alleged
to have been committed by him.
11 2026:HHC:1505
22. The exceptions, under which, the bail can be
denied, have elaborately been discussed by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Manmohan Singh
v. State of Punjab, reported in PLR (2004) 136 P & H 4.
Relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment are
reproduced, as under:
"7....The reasonable grounds for believing that
his release is likely to bring 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,
should be based upon some material/evidence
available on the record. It is not a matter of
subjective satisfaction but while declining bail
to the juvenile on the said ground, there must
be objective assessment of the reasonable
grounds that the release of the juvenile is
likely to bring him in association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice…
8. In Sanjay Kumar's case (supra) it has
been held by the Allahabad High Court that
every juvenile whatever offence he is charged
with, shall be released on bail but he may,
however, be refused bail if there appears
reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring him into association
with the any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or that
his release would defeat the ends of justice
and that the existence of such ground should
not be mere guess work of court but it should
be substantiated by some evidence on record."
12 2026:HHC:1505
23. Even, considering the non obstante clause, the
provisions of the Act will override the provisions of Cr.PC,
regarding bail and the JJB is bound to release the person
on bail or put him under the supervision of a Probation
Officer or under the care of any fit person.
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No.9566/2024), titled as Conflict with Law V versus
The State of Rajasthan and Anr., decided on
14.08.2024, has elaborately discussed the proviso to sub
section (1) of Section 12 of the JJ Act. Relevant
paragraphs 6 to 10 of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced, as under:
“6. From the phraseology used in subsection 1
of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to
be necessarily released on bail with or without
surety or placed under supervision of a probation
officer or under the care of any fit person unless
proviso is applicable.
7. We have perused all the orders passed
earlier by the JJ Board, Special Court and High
Court and specially the order dated 11
th
December,
2023 passed by the JJ Board. There is no finding
recorded that the proviso to subSection 1 of Section
12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without
recording the said finding, bail could not have been
denied to juvenile in conflict with law.
13 2026:HHC:1505
8. Our attention is invited to Psychological
Assessment Report of the Juvenile. The report
records that the juvenile does not belong to high risk
category and against the column “worry list of
child” it is mentioned that there was “no worry”.
The report is signed by a qualified Clinical
Psychologist.
9. Though none of the courts at no stage have
recorded a finding that in the facts of the case, the
proviso to subSection 1 of Section 12 was
applicable, the juvenile in conflict with law has been
denied bail for last one year.
10. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
25. While deciding such type of question, the
provisions of Section 3 of the Act assume significance.
Those provisions are reproduced, as under:
“3.General principles to be followed in
administration of Act.– The Central Government,
the State Governments, the Board, and other
agencies, as the case may be, while implementing
the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the
following fundamental principles, namely:—
(i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any
child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any
mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of
eighteen years.
(ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All human
beings shall be treated with equal dignity and
rights.
(iii) Principle of participation: Every child shall
have a right to be heard and to participate in all
processes and decisions affecting his interest and
the child’s views shall be taken into consideration
with due regard to the age and maturity of the
child.
14 2026:HHC:1505
(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions
regarding the child shall be based on the primary
consideration that they are in the best interest of
the child and to help the child to develop full
potential.
(v)Principle of family responsibility: The
primary responsibility of care, nurture and
protection of the child shall be that of the biological
family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case
may be.
(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be
taken to ensure that the child is safe and is not
subjected to any harm, abuse or maltreatment
while in contact with the care and protection
system, and thereafter.
(vii)Positive measures: All resources are to be
mobilised including those of family and
community, for promoting the wellbeing,
facilitating development of identity and providing
an inclusive and enabling environment, to reduce
vulnerabilities of children and the need for
intervention under this Act.
(viii) Principle of nonstigmatising semantics:
Adversarial or accusatory words are not to be used
in the processes pertaining to a child.
(ix) Principle of nonwaiver of rights: No waiver
of any of the right of the child is permissible or
valid, whether sought by the child or person acting
on behalf of the child, or a Board or a Committee
and any nonexercise of a fundamental right shall
not amount to waiver.
(x) Principle of equality and nondiscrimination:
There shall be no discrimination against a child on
any grounds including sex, caste, ethnicity, place
of birth, disability and equality of access,
opportunity and treatment shall be provided to
every child.
(xi)Principle of right to privacy and
confidentiality: Every child shall have a right to
protection of his privacy and confidentiality, by all
means and throughout the judicial process.
15 2026:HHC:1505
(xii)Principle of institutionalization as a measure
of last resort: A child shall be placed in
institutional care as a step of last resort after
making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii)Principle of repatriation and restoration:
Every child in the juvenile justice system shall
have the right to be reunited with his family at the
earliest and to be restored to the same socio
economic and cultural status that he was in, before
coming under the purview of this Act, unless such
restoration and repatriation is not in his best
interest.
(xiv)Principle of fresh start: All past records of
any child under the Juvenile Justice system
should be erased except in special circumstances.
(xv)Principle of diversion: Measures for dealing
with children in conflict with law without resorting
to judicial proceedings shall be promoted unless it
is in the best interest of the child or the society as
a whole.
(xvi)Principles of natural justice: Basic procedural
standards of fairness shall be adhered to,
including the right to a fair hearing, rule against
bias and the right to review, by all persons or
bodies, acting in a judicial capacity under this Act.
26. The cumulative effect of the above provisions,
contained in Section 3 of the Act, is that the CCL shall be
presumed to be innocent of any mala fide or criminal
intent up to the age of 18 years and all decisions, regarding
the CCL, shall be based on the primary consideration that
they are in the best interest of the child and to help the
child in developing full potential.
16 2026:HHC:1505
27. There is nothing on the record, which brings
the case of the CCL into exceptions, as carved out under
the proviso to Section 12 of the JJ Act. There is nothing in
Section 12 of the Act, which demonstrates the legislative
intent to treat the offence, for which, the CCL has been
named, with a different treatment.
28. A bare reading of Section 12 of the JJ Act,
mandates that the JJB is under the legal obligation to
release the CCL with or without surety and exceptions
have been carved out, by way of proviso i.e., the reasonable
grounds for believing that his/her release is likely to bring
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.
29. It has rightly been argued by learned counsel
for the CCL that without recording the findings, qua the
fact that in case, the CCL is released on bail, the CCL
would come in contact of any known criminal or expose
such juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger,
the approach of the learned JJB is not sustainable in the
17 2026:HHC:1505
eyes of law. Even, the learned appellate Court has fallen
into the error.
30. As per Section 12 of the Act, relief can only be
declined, if the material is before the JJB to decline the
relief, as per proviso added to Section 12(1) of the Act.
31. At the time of deciding the application for bail,
the JJB is not supposed to discuss the merits/demerits of
the case to ascertain the guilt/innocence of the CCL. In the
absence of any material to justify in bringing the case of
the CCL under the definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’,
as defined in proviso of Section 12 of the Act, the said
order is not sustainable, in the eyes of law.
32. With these observations, this Court is of the
view that the order passed by the JJB, as upheld by the
learned appellate Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of
law, and orders, under challenge, san correctness and
legality.
33.. Consequently, the present criminal revision
petition is allowed and the order, passed by the learned
JJB, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, is set aside
18 2026:HHC:1505
and the CCL is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an
undertaking that upon release of the CCL on
bail, she will not permit her to go into contact or
association with any known criminal or allowed
to be exposed to any moral, physical, or
psychological danger.
ii)Natural guardian/father will ensure that
the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(iii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish
an undertaking to the effect that the CCL will
pursue his studies at the appropriate level.
(iv) CCL as well as the natural guardian/
father will report to the Probation Officer on 3
rd
day of every calendar month commencing from
February, 2026, and if during any calendar
month the 3
rd
day falls on a holiday, then on the
following working day.
(v)The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil
on the activities of the juvenile and regularly
draw up his social investigation report that
would be submitted to the concerned Juvenile
Justice Board, on such a periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
(vi) The CCL shall not leave the country,
without prior permission of the Court.
34. With these observations, the petition stands
disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
35. Any of the observations made herein above shall
not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of
19 2026:HHC:1505
the case as these observations are confined only to the
disposal of the present bail application.
36. Record be returned to the quarter concerned
under proper receipt.
( Virender Singh )
January 06, 2026 (ps) Judge
Legal Notes
Add a Note....