JXXXXX vs State of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.162 dated 03.11.2025 under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2)(3), 191(3) and 190 of BNS Act No.45 of 2023/Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 506, 148, 149 of IPC Act No.45 of 1860 registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla, Punjab.

As per the prosecution, FIR No. 162 dated 03.11.2025 was registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla, alleging that on 01.11.2025, the complainant Jatinder Singh and his nephew Arashpreet Singh were surrounded by the petitioner and his co-accused, who were armed with sharp-edged and blunt weapons. It is alleged that the petitioner was armed with a daah and inflicted a blow on the left shoulder of the complainant and thereafter caused injuries to Arashpreet Singh on the left side of his chest and back with the daah. The MLR of the complainant recorded five injuries, whereas the MLR of Arashpreet Singh recorded six injuries. The head injury of Arashpreet Singh was subsequently treated as grievous and was attributed to co-accused Karanveer Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that no grievous injury is attributed to him. The only grievous injury suffered by Arashpreet Singh is attributed to co-accused Karanveer Singh. The injuries allegedly caused by the petitioner have not been declared grievous.

It is further contended that the petitioner was 17 years of age on the date of occurrence, his date of birth being 04.05.2008, and therefore he was a juvenile in conflict with law. It is also submitted that the complainant and injured failed to appear before the Medical Board despite two opportunities for re-medical examination, thereby casting doubt upon the nature of the injuries.

It is also submitted that similarly placed co-accused Darshan Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, which was subsequently made absolute after he joined and cooperated with the investigation.

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, actively participated in the occurrence and caused injuries to the complainant and his nephew.

It is further contended that, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

The case of the petitioner is that he was a child in conflict with law on the date of commission of the alleged offence. The specific allegation attributed to him is of causing a simple injury, whereas the grievous injury has been attributed to the co-accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while declining the prayer for pre-arrest bail, proceeded on the premise that the petitioner was sharing the intention of the co-accused and, being presumed to have attained sufficient maturity, was liable to be treated as an adult. However, before forming such an opinion, the procedure contemplated under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was not followed.

It is also evident that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while considering the prayer for pre-arrest bail, did not advert to the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which governs the grant of bail to a child in conflict with law and permits denial of bail only on the grounds specifically contemplated therein.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner regarding his being a child in conflict with law at the time of the alleged occurrence requires consideration in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The mere attribution of common intention with the co-accused, by itself, cannot dispense with the statutory procedure prescribed for determining whether a child is to be dealt with as an adult.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or on the ultimate determination regarding the age/status of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board and move an appropriate application for regular bail. The Juvenile Justice Board shall decide the said application, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of seven days from the date of its filing.

Till the decision of the said bail application by the Juvenile Justice Board, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of