JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - This is the first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant (Juvenile in conflict with law) was arrested on 09/10/2018 in connection with Crime No.869/2018 registered at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC & Section 25 (1-B) (B) of Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Aman Arele went to the house of his friend Madhav Patel situated near Dulha Dev Mandir. At around 6:00 pm on 05/10/2018, after an hour's stay, when Madhav Patel was going to leave Aman Arele back to his house by his motorcycle, on the way, they came upon Aman Yadav near Pramod Tent House. Aman Yadav also sat on the motorcycle with them. Thereafter, on the way, at around 8:00 pm, when they reached in front of Puran Patel's house, applicant (Juvenile in conflict with law), co-accused A (Juvenile in conflict with law) and Assu @ Ashish Chaudhary, came running in front of them from the opposite side with knives in their hands. They stopped Aman Arele, Aman Yadav and Madhav Patel and due to the quarrel that happened a day ago, the applicant (Juvenile in conflict with law), co-accused A (Juvenile in conflict with law) and Assu @ Ashish Chaudhary started beating them. Aman Arele and Aman Yadav managed to escape from the spot. Madhav Patel fell on the spot. He was caught by the applicant (Juvenile in conflict with law), co-accused A (Juvenile in conflict with law) & Assu @ Ashish Chaudhary and was taken in front of Chhote Pasi's house and stabbed with a knife and injuring him. Due to this, he fell on the spot. He was rushed to the hospital for treatment from the spot where doctors declared him dead. 3. Police registered the Crime No.869/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and investigated the matter. After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the co-accused Assu @ Ashish Chaudhary before JMFC Jabalpur and against applicant and co-accused A (Juvenile in conflict with law) finding them juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board. Police registered the Crime No.869/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and investigated the matter. After investigation Police filed charge-sheet against the co-accused Assu @ Ashish Chaudhary before JMFC Jabalpur and against applicant and co-accused A (Juvenile in conflict with law) finding them juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned Juvenile Justice Board after preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (further referred to as the "Act of 2015") remitted the case of applicant to Children's Court Jabalpur under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015 for the trial of the applicant as an adult. On that S.T.No.279/2019 was registered, which is pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. During trial of the case, the applicant filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (further referred to as the Code) for being released on bail, which was rejected by the learned ASJ, Jabalpur. Thereafter, the applicant filed this application under Section 439 of the Code. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a juvenile offender aged about 16 years. As per the mandate of the law, any child below 18 years of age who is involved in an offence, can take the recourse of Section 12 of the Act for getting himself bailed out irrespective of the fact that the trial of the child is being conducted by the Children Court as an adult, according to the procedure prescribed under the Code, for Sessions trial. He further submitted that under the provisions of the Section 12 of the Act, a juvenile delinquent has got an unqualified right to seek bail irrespective of the gravity, depth and seriousness of the offence, and his bail could be denied strictly on the three grounds, as mentioned under the proviso of Section 12 of the Act, 2015. While considering application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code, mere gravity of allegations by itself may be ground for rejecting the bail. While considering application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code, mere gravity of allegations by itself may be ground for rejecting the bail. Learned Children's Court committed mistake in rejecting applicant's bail application without recording any finding based on evidence and backed by reason that the applicant if released on bail would come into association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger; or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned order refusing bail is bad in law. Applicant has been in custody since 09/10/2018. The charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that new provisions have been made in the Act of 2015 regarding the trial of the child in conflict with the law, in the age group of 16 to 18 years, tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by Children's Court. They are to be tried by the Children's Court, in terms of the provisions of the Code. Thus, in their case, while considering bail or holding trial, the provisions of the Code would be applicable. So, the bail application on behalf of a child in the age group of 16 to 18 years, tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by Children's Court has to be filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code before the Children's Court after transfer of his case for trial to the Children's Court and seriousness of the offence would certainly be a ground for rejecting bail in that case. The case of such a child would not be covered by the law as laid down in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, so the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the bail of the applicant. 6. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. It is alleged that the applicant is juvenile aged between 16-18 years and is facing trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (B) of Arms Act. 6. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. It is alleged that the applicant is juvenile aged between 16-18 years and is facing trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (B) of Arms Act. Now the legal question arises as to whether bail application of a juvenile between age group of 16 to 18 tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by Children's Court filed under section 439 of the Code is maintainable, and if not, what are the provisions for considering the bail of a Juvenile tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by Children's Court and the factors applied by the Children's Court while releasing him on bail during the trial. Whether the instant bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code is maintainable before this Court ? 7. From a bare perusal of the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Model Rules, 2016 (further referred to as the "Rules 2016") regarding trial of a juvenile delinquent, the following position shall emerge :- 8. When a child below 16 years is brought before the Board for committing an offence, he/she has to be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as per the procedures under Section 14 and 18 of the Act of 2015 irrespective of the fact that he committed a petty offence, serious offence or a heinous offence. Only where the heinous offence is committed by a child between the age of 16-18 years, he is first produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board is to conduct a preliminary assessment. The assessment is basically to assess the capacity of the child to commit the offence and where the child understands the consequences of the alleged offence. Based on the preliminary assessment, two situations may arise:- a) The Juvenile Justice Board decides that the matter should be disposed of by the Board itself, the Board follows the procedures as per Section 14 and 18 of the Act. Based on the preliminary assessment, two situations may arise:- a) The Juvenile Justice Board decides that the matter should be disposed of by the Board itself, the Board follows the procedures as per Section 14 and 18 of the Act. b) The Board decides that the child needs to be tried as an adult and thus make an order to transfer the trial of the case to the Children's Court as per Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015. 9. When the matter comes before the Children's Court, the Children's Court has two options: If it decides that there is no need for the trial of the child as an adult, in such cases, it has the power of the Juvenile Justice Board as per Section 8(2) of the Act of 2015 and Sub-Rule (7)(i) of Rule 13 of "Rules 2016. Therefore, instead of transferring the case back to the Board, the Children's Court can conduct inquiry and pass orders accordingly and in that case, Children's Court tries the case according to the trial prescribed by the code for summons cases. On the other hand, where the Children's Court decides that there is a need for the trial of the child as an adult, it shall follow the procedure prescribed by the Code for trial before a court of Session. The quantum of detention in such cases is not prescribed in the Act and has been left at the discretion of the Children's Court with the embargo mentioned in Section 21 of the Act that no child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offence, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force. 10. An appeal against the order passed by the Board will be filed before sessions Judge under Sub-Section (1 & 2) of Section 101 of the Act 2015 and an appeal against the order passed by the Children's Court will be filed, in the High Court, under Sub-Section (5) of Section 101 of the Act of 2015. 11. In the entire scheme of Juvenile Justice Act, there is one and only provision considering the bail of a child which is contained in the Section 12 of the Act of 2015. 11. In the entire scheme of Juvenile Justice Act, there is one and only provision considering the bail of a child which is contained in the Section 12 of the Act of 2015. It is manifest from the plain reading of Section 12 of the Act that irrespective of nature and character of the crime, if a 'child' is brought by the police or appears before the Board, such child shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law enforced in time, ''shall' be released on bail with or without surety under the supervision of 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. 12. The word ''Child' defined in Section 2(12) of the Act 2015, means a person who has not completed 18 years of age. Similarly, "child in conflict with law" defined in Section 2(13) of the act, means a child who is alleged or found to have committed an offence and who has not completed eighteen years of age on the date of commission of such offence and the word "juvenile" defined in Section 2(35) of the Act means a child below the age of eighteen years. Thus, on conjoint reading of these provisions, "child" means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. 13. So far as bail of a minor is concerned, there is no distinction or classification in the Act of 2015 with regard to a child (Juvenile) tried by the Board and the child tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by Children's Court. 14. 13. So far as bail of a minor is concerned, there is no distinction or classification in the Act of 2015 with regard to a child (Juvenile) tried by the Board and the child tried as an adult for 'heinous offences' by Children's Court. 14. A Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Tejram Nagrachi Juvenile Vs State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer,2019 SCCOnLineChh 24 dealing with the issue whether the bail application of a juvenile is maintainable under Section 437/439 of Cr.P.C. observed "Section 12 of the Act of 2015 having included 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions as contained in the Code in respect of grant of bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code has to be excluded and shall not apply while considering the juvenile's right to be enlarged on bail for which a specific provision has been made under Section 12 and thereafter the appellate and revisional powers of the Court of Sessions and the High Court as contained in Sections 101 and 102 of the Act of 2015, as the case may be." 15. Therefore, as per the mandate of the law, any child who is below 18 years of age, involved in an offence, can take the recourse of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for getting himself bailed out. 16. Although in the Section 12 of the Act 2015 the words "Children's Court" is not mentioned and merely, the word 'Board' is mentioned, Section 8 (2) of the Act of 2015 provides that the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children's Court, when the proceedings come before them under section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise. So it is clear that the powers of grant of bail to a person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non bailable offence, conferred on the Board under Section 12 of the Act 2015 are also available to the Children's Court when the proceedings come before it under section 19 or in the appeal. 17. 17. The Division Bench of Patna High Court in criminal appeal (SJ) No.2117 of 2019 (Rajan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar) decided on 30 September, 2019 while answering a reference after considering all the relevant provisions of the Act observed as under:- "178. We, thus, sum up the references by holding as under:- Q. (i). Under which provision of law, a child, who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is alleged to have committed a 'heinous offence' can maintain his application during the pendency of preliminary assessment by the Board under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 ? A. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, a child, who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is alleged to have committed a 'heinous offence' can maintain his application for release on bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 during the pendency of preliminary assessment by the Board under Section 15 of the Act of 2015. Q. (ii). Under which provision of law, a child, who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is alleged to have committed a 'heinous offence' can maintain his application for release on bail after the transfer of his case to the Children's Court for trial by the Board ? A. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, a child, who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is alleged to have committed a 'heinous offence' can maintain his application for release on bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 after the transfer of his case to the Children's Court. Q. (iii). Whether the powers conferred on the Board in the matter of bail to a person, who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law are also available to the Children's Court ? A. In view of clear, unambiguous and specific stipulation in Section 8(2) of the Act of 2015, which provides that the powers conferred on the Board under the Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children's Court in the matter of grant of bail to a person who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or nonbailable offence, the powers conferred on the Board under the Act of 2015 are also available to the Children's Court and the High Court. Q.(iv). Q.(iv). Whether the seriousness of the offence alleged is a ground for rejecting the bail in case of a child in conflict with law ? A. Seriousness of the offence alleged cannot be made a ground for rejecting bail under the Act of 2015. Q. (v). Whether an appeal under Section 101(5) of the Act of 2015 or an application under Section 439 of the CrPC would be maintainable before the High Court by any person aggrieved by the order granting or rejecting bail by the Children's Court? A. Against an order granting or refusing bail passed by the Children's Court, no application for bail or cancellation of bail under Section 439(1) or 439(2) of the CrPC shall lie before the High Court and against such an order only an appeal under Section 101(5) of the Act of 2015 would be maintainable. The 'phrase' "in accordance with the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure' ' does not allude to application of the entire CrPC to the Act of 2015. The said reference to the CrPC in Section 101(5) of the Act of 2015 only means that the procedure, and not the substantive Sections, prescribed under Chapter XXIX shall apply to the appeal that could be filed under the said Section. To clarify further, the appeal, in terms of Section 101(5) has to be considered on the basis of material available on the record, i.e material produced before the Board under Section 13 of the Act of 2015 and considerations arrived at in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for the purpose of grant of bail and not the considerations of grant of bail in terms of Sections 437, 438 and 439 of the CrPC. The reference in Section 101(5) to "procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure'' does not enlarge the scope of subsections to create a substantive right in terms of Section 439 of the CrPC in Section 101(5) of the Act of 2015. Q. (vi). What is the scope of Section 19(1)(i) of the Act of 2015 in connection with the trial of a child as an adult? Whether the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 2015 are mandatory or the Children's Court has to compulsorily follow the recommendations of the Board made under Section 15 read with Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015 ? Whether the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 2015 are mandatory or the Children's Court has to compulsorily follow the recommendations of the Board made under Section 15 read with Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015 ? A. Upon a case of a child having been transferred to the Children's Court, a duty has been cast upon the Children's Court to further decide about the suitability of the child to be tried as an adult. The words used in Section 19(1)(i) and 19(1)(ii) of the Act of 2015 give two options to the Children's Court. First, to try the transferred child as an adult and second not to deal with the child as an adult. The Children's Court is required to record its reason while arriving at a conclusion whether the child should be treated as a child or an adult in view of Rule 13 (6) of the Rules. In case, the Children's Court decides to deal with a child as a child it has to conduct an inquiry as a Board following the procedures for trial of a summons case in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 as would appear from the words used in Section 19(1)(i) of the Act of 2015. In case, it decides to try the child as an adult, it shall follow the procedure as prescribed by the CrPC for the purpose of trial by Sessions Court and pass appropriate orders after trial without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 19 and 21 of the Act of 2015 considering special 'needs of the child' the tenets of 'fair trial' and maintaining a 'child friendly' atmosphere as provided under Section 19(1)(i) of the Act of 2015. The provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2015 are mandatory. The Children's Court cannot dispense with the requirement of deciding as to whether there is need to try the transferred child as an adult or to deal with the transferred child as a child. Q. (vii). What is the scope of application of the provisions of CrPC after the Board transfers the trial of the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences and the Children's Court decides that there is a need for trial of the child as an adult? Q. (vii). What is the scope of application of the provisions of CrPC after the Board transfers the trial of the case to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences and the Children's Court decides that there is a need for trial of the child as an adult? A. The procedure followed by the Children's Court for trial of a child as an adult would be of a warrant case and the proceedings in Chapter XVIII prescribed under Sections 225 to 237 of the CrPC, which deal with warrant cases by a Court of Sessions only would be applicable while trying a child as an adult, subject to exceptions indicated under the Act of 2015." 18. This Court fully agrees with the view taken by the Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court. So, on the basis of above discussion this Court holds that the grant of bail to a juvenile is required to be dealt with under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and not under Sections 437 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The powers of grant of bail to a person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non bailable offence, conferred on the Board under Section 12 of the Act 2015 are also available to the Children's Court when the proceedings come before it under Section 19 or in the appeal. Against an order granting or refusing bail passed by the Children's Court, no application for bail or cancellation of bail under Section 439(1) or 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall lie before the High Court and against such an order only an appeal under Section 101(5) of the Act of 2015 would be maintainable. 19. In view of this the application for grant of bail filed by the applicant (Juvenile in conflict with law) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. Therefore, this application is dismissed without considering it on merits as non maintainable with the liberty that the applicant is free to file an application before Children's Court/trial Court under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which shall be decided by the trial Court according to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 without being influenced by its earlier order. Certified copy as per rules.