Ccl A v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN.1411/2025 CCL A .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ankur Mahindero and M.r Rohan Taneja and Mr.

Ragav Karla, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State with SI Sanjeeta P.S. Mukherjee Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 14.05.2025 A Bail Application has been filed on behalf of AR (CCL) for Bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in FIR No.153/2025 under Section 109(1)/3(5) of BNS. The FIR was registered on the Complaint of the mother of the injured, who stated that one Krishna along with his other friends, slapped her child and threatened him. Thereafter, co-accused Krishna stabbed her son with a knife. 2.

It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that he is not named in the FIR and in fact, has no connection with offence. He is a child below 16 years of age. He was arrested on 10.03.2025 and is in Judicial Custody since then. The Bail Application filed before the Juvenile Justice Board-I has been rejected on 04.03.2025.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

3.

It is submitted that the Order of rejection of Bail is contrary to the Principle of Section 12 Juvenile Justice Act and has been passed mechanically. For the purpose of counselling, the child need not be retained in the Observation Home and the same could have been made a condition of Bail. There is neither any apprehension or allegation that he may repeat the alleged offence in future. There is also no possibility of bringing him in association with the co-accused or to expose him to moral/psychological danger. He has clean antecedents and has never before been involved in any crime. He has deep roots in Society. He is a school going child and is presently in Tenth standard. Hence, an Application is made for grant of bail. 4.

The Status Report has been submitted on behalf of the State, wherein it is submitted that the injured suffered an incised wound over abdomen of approx. 4 X 2 Cms. which perforated his abdomen. The nature of injury was certified as "dangerous". The mother of the injured was an eye witness on whose statement the FIR was registered. During the investigations coaccused Krishna @ Kinna and Mithlesh, were apprehended. One weapon was recovered from Krishna.

5.

The Bail Application of the Applicant is opposed on the ground that the offence committed is heinous. He can threaten and intimidate the victim as well the witnesses. There is likelihood of his tampering with the evidence. He is not in the control of his parents and may commit more crime. There is also risk of his continued association with criminal elements.

6.

Submissions heard and record perused.

7.

The Applicant was apprehended on 10.03.2025 since when he has been in the custody. According to the Prosecution, one weapon was The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

recovered at his instance. The main named co-accused was Krishna who had stabbed the injured as per the statement of the Complainant, and from whom one knife has been recovered, has already been granted Bail. 8.

Considering the aforesaid circumstances and that he is in Judicial Custody for last 66 days, the Applicant is granted Regular Bail, on the following terms and conditions:

a) The petitioner/accused shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

b) The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing;

c) The petitioner/accused shall provide his mobile number/changed mobile number to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times;

d) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate or intimidate the witnesses. e) In case the petitioner/accused changes their residential address, the same shall be intimated to learned Trial Court and to the concerned I.O.

9.

The copy of this Order be communicated to the concerned Observation Home as well as to the learned Trial Court. 10.

The above Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J MAY 14, 2025/va The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.