ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to in short as the ‘JJ Act’) to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2024 in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R. No. 11208052240095 of 2024 registered with Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the NDPS Act’) and release the juvenile on regular bail. 3. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.06.2024, on verification, it was found that there is a Notification of the learned Principal District Judge, Rajkot dated 20.05.2022 authorizing the Special Court to try the cases under The Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005, (4 of 2006) for Rajkot District with effect from 23.05.2022. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Mohamadzaid I. Saiyed that the juvenile in conflict with law was aged about 17 years at the time of commission of the offence and as per the facts and circumstances of the case, 11 Kgs. of the contraband ‘ganja’ was found in the vehicle which was on the foot rest of the Scooter which was given by the juvenile’s friend, i.e. the co-accused – Danish @ Bhago Hanifbhai Majothi (hereinafter referred to as Danish). 5. The facts of the case suggest that the co-accused-Danish was in the illegal sale of the prohibited article - Ganja. Since Danish was the juvenile’s friend and when the vehicle of Danish was already with the juvenile on the date of the offence, Danish had informed the juvenile through Mobile that a Hindi speaking man would be at Kajal Pan Parlour and Danish had instructed him to collect the Bag which would be given to him by that person and further had instructed him to take the same bag at the house of Habibbhai Harunbhai Khiyani (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Habibbhai’). It is alleged that the juvenile had carried the bag at the house of Habibbhai. It is alleged that the juvenile had carried the bag at the house of Habibbhai. It is further submitted that the juvenile since was having the vehicle of his friend in his possession, he followed the instructions of his friend who is a major and without any knowledge of contraband article in the bag, he proceeded towards the house of Habibbhai and during that process, he was apprehended by the police. 6. Learned Advocate for the applicant also submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) was required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, where the juvenile had no knowledge of the contraband article in the bag. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents nor are there any allegations of the juvenile being actively involved in such illegal activity. Further, though this fact was noticed by JJB, in the order the JJB observed that the juvenile had fallen in bad company of his friend and other such friend and raised an apprehension of every possibility that they would get the juvenile involved in such illegal transfer of ganja. This would have an adverse effect on the mental status of the juvenile and had observed that the juvenile was misused in the criminal act by the above co-accused. 7. It is further submitted that the bail application of the juvenile aged about more than 16 years has to be evaluated on the basis of the Protective Officer’s Report with preliminary assessment of Section 15 of the JJ Act. Both the Courts, i.e. the JJB and Children’s Court were required to take the assistance of experienced psychologists, social workers or other experts to examine the mental and physical capacity to commit the offences as also the circumstances under which the alleged offences came to be committed. It is also submitted that the facts disclose that the juvenile was having no knowledge of contraband article in the bag and was merely following the instructions of his friend which in the normal course any person would do so since the vehicle of the co-accused - Danish was in possession of the present juvenile and he had gone to pick up the bag which was to be handed over to be given to Habibbhai’s house. The Children’s Court has not dealt with the facts of the case and has decided the applicant for grant of bail not as per Section 12 of JJ Act but under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’). It is further submitted that the learned Judge was required to observe the Protective Officer’s Report and was required to deal with the bail application in accordance to the Report and by taking the assistance of psychologists. It was, therefore, prayed that the present application may be allowed. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta submitted that the juvenile is aged 17 years which is proof of his majority. It is further submitted that quantity which was found in his possession was 11 Kgs. of Ganja, which is intermediate quantity and which was recovered from the possession of the juvenile. It is also submitted that the co-accused, who is the friend of the juvenile is a notorious criminal minded person who would attract the juvenile in such illegal activity which would affect his future and therefore, urged that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the juvenile and the juvenile be sent to a Correction Home. 9. Heard learned Advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The facts of the case suggest that the juvenile’s father is a truck driver, the mother is home-maker and one brother is a labour. The juvenile is working in a factory and has studied till Standard IX. The juvenile was holding the vehicle of his friend and on the date of incident, his friend had asked the juvenile to go to the Pan shop to collect the bag, which was to be given at the house of Habibbhai. Though the possession of the bag was found to be with the juvenile, it was placed on the foot rest of the vehicle. The facts do not disclose that the juvenile was having knowledge of the article which was packed in the bag. The JJB nor the Children’s Court have noted of any Report under Section 15 of the JJ Act. The facts do not disclose that the juvenile was having knowledge of the article which was packed in the bag. The JJB nor the Children’s Court have noted of any Report under Section 15 of the JJ Act. The mental and physical capacity of the juvenile has not been recorded nor have both the Courts recorded about the ability of the juvenile to understand the consequences of the offences nor has elaborated on the circumstances under which the alleged offence came to be committed. 10. This Court in an earlier Criminal Revision Application No. 1024 of 2023 (Child in conflict with law through Guardian vs. State of Gujarat) vide judgment dated 15.09.2023 had given the guidelines for the JJB and the Children’s Court to follow incase of a juvenile where the Court was required to have (i) Objective satisfaction (ii) Subjective satisfaction and (iii) Judicial satisfaction and to examine the case the juvenile by following the guidelines of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights which were framed after the case of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022, declared on 13.07.2022. 11. Here in this case, it appears that the present juvenile was in the company of the co-accused who are criminal minded. The co-accused were in the illegal activity of sale of contraband article which in this case is ‘ganja’. As per the facts of the case, there are no criminal antecedents of juvenile who hails from a humble family where the father is a truck driver and the juvenile is working in a factory. Nothing has been observed by the Courts below with regard to the mental capacity of the juvenile to understand the consequence of such offences. The co-accused - Danish and Habibbhai both have been granted bail under the NDPS Act. 12. Taking into consideration the role attributed to the juvenile and the circumstances under which the offences came to be committed, this Court is of the view that juvenile should be kept under the supervision of his parents so that they can ensure that he would not fall into bad company and would not be directly or indirectly influenced by the co- accused or any such criminal minded persons. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the juvenile 13. In the result, the Revision Application is allowed. The juvenile in conflict with law is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, upon his father executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with a surety of the like amount before the Children’s Court. 13.1. It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the conduct of the juvenile in conflict with law and shall quarterly submit the report before the Children’s Court till completion of the trial. Moreover, if the Probation Officer considers any necessity of sending the juvenile for any behavior modification then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to the juvenile in conflict with law. 13.2. The father of the juvenile to ensure that the juvenile will not fall into bad company. 14. The order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS Court), Rajkot and the order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1228 of 2024 by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at Rajkot are quashed and set aside. 15. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.