Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 367 (HP)

Ak (minor) v. State of H. P.

2025-03-12

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Rakesh Kainthla, J.) The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.12.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the child in conflict with law (CCL) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police received information that the dead body of a female was lying in an approach road rain shelter. The police went to the spot and found the dead body of a woman. A dupatta was tied around her neck. The police conducted the investigation and found that the CCL and other co-accused had stopped near the approach road rain shelter. The deceased also came to the rain shelter. The CCL and other co-accused had raped the deceased. Her head hit something in the rain shelter. They attempted to take the woman to the jungle but her dupatta got entangled in her neck and she died on the spot. CCL and co- accused found Rs.3560/- in her purse and distributed the money amongst themselves. The police arrested CCL and the co- accused. The police effected the recovery of various articles at the instance of the CCL and the co-accused. As per the report of the postmortem examination, Satya Devi had died due to ligature strangulation. The petitioner was found to be born on 21.12.2007. He had joined other accused in the gang rape and murder of the deceased. The charge sheet was filed before the Court. 3. The CCL filed an application seeking bail. Learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board held that the gravity of the offence shows the circumstances in which the offence was committed. The parents of the CCL had left him in the company of the co-accused, and in case of his release on protective custody, he would be exposed to the criminals as had occurred in the past. Hence the bail petition was dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, JJB, the CCL filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge. It was held that in case of release of the CCL, he would be exposed to moral danger and come in contact with the known criminals. Hence the bail petition was dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, JJB, the CCL filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge. It was held that in case of release of the CCL, he would be exposed to moral danger and come in contact with the known criminals. There was no infirmity in the order passed by learned Principal Magistrate, JJB. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the learned Courts below, the CCL has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the law in its proper perspective. The FIR was lodged on false and bogus facts. The CCL was not required in the offence. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. No recovery is to be effected from the CCL and a false case was planted against the CCL by the police. The provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act were not properly appreciated. There was no reasonable ground to believe that CCL was likely to come into association with any known criminal or he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned Courts below erred in not releasing the CCL on bail. CCL would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 6. I have heard M/s Servedaman Rathore and Vipin Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 7. Mr Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the bail petition. There was no evidence that the CCL was likely to come into contact with known criminals or he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger in case of release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the CCL be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of Manoj Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/1722/2023, X Vs. State of U.P. and another MANU/UP/1378/2023 and XYZ Vs. State of H.P. 2024 STPL 10023 HP in support of his submission. 8. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the CCL was abandoned by his family members. He relied upon the judgment of Manoj Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/1722/2023, X Vs. State of U.P. and another MANU/UP/1378/2023 and XYZ Vs. State of H.P. 2024 STPL 10023 HP in support of his submission. 8. Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the CCL was abandoned by his family members. He came in contact with the known criminals and learned Courts below had rightly held that releasing him on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads as under: - “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 bailable 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 appear 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. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in- charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in- charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home 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 sub- section (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.” 11. It is apparent from the bare perusal of Section that CCL has to be released on bail with or without surety or has to be placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or any fit person notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The non-obstante clause shows that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act will override the provisions of Cr.P.C. regarding the bail and the Court is bound to release the person on bail or put him under the supervision of a Probation Officer or the care of any fit person. The proviso reads that CCL cannot be released if there are reasonable grounds to believe that CCL is likely to associate with any known criminal or his release shall expose him to moral, criminal or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. It was laid down by this Court in XYZ (supra) that release can only be denied if the Court or the Board is satisfied that the CCL would come into contact with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger however, the reasons have to be recorded. It was observed:- “11. It was laid down by this Court in XYZ (supra) that release can only be denied if the Court or the Board is satisfied that the CCL would come into contact with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger however, the reasons have to be recorded. It was observed:- “11. Since the proviso to Section 12 makes it mandatory for the court to record a finding, especially when the court proposes to send the CCL to observation Home, the court while considering prayer, if any, under Section 12 cannot merely on the basis of the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the CCL, can presume that in the event of his/her being enlarged on bail, he may indulge in these activities again, rather sufficient reason is required to be recorded in the order which compels/persuades the court to send the CCL to an observation home. 12. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of the judgment dated 14.8.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Juvenile in Conflict with Law V v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., passed in Criminal Appeal (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9566 /2024) wherein, while interpreting Section 12 of the Juvenile Act, especially proviso to the aforesaid provision of law, Hon’ble Apex Court held that specific finding is required to be recorded in context of proviso to subsection 1 of Section 12 of the Act by the court concerned, especially when it proposes to send the accused to the observation home. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below: “6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with the law has to be necessarily released on bail with or without surety or placed under the 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 especially the order dated 11th December 2023 passed by the JJ Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to a juvenile in conflict with the law. 8. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to a juvenile in conflict with the law. 8. Our attention is invited to the Psychological Assessment Report of the Juvenile. The report records that the juvenile does not belong to the high-risk category and against the column “worry list of the 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 sub-Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the juvenile in conflict with the law has been denied bail for the last one year. 10. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” 13. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in X (minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr. , wherein the word “Known Criminal” used in proviso came to be specifically dealt with and elaborated. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under: 14. The term 'known criminal' has not been defined in "the Juvenile Justice Act" or the Rules framed there under. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that in the absence of any statutory definition of any term used in any particular statute the same must be assigned meaning as in commonly understood in the context of such statute as held by the Supreme Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 in para 11 as under: (SCC p. 726 para 11) "11......It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of the statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. [See: Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 413: AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Chemical and Fibers of India v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 664 : AIR 1997 SC 558 ]... 15. [See: Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 413: AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Chemical and Fibers of India v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 664 : AIR 1997 SC 558 ]... 15. In Nand Kishore (in JC) v. State (2006) 4 RCR (Cri.) 754 , Delhi High Court, while considering the condition of proviso of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, observed that "as regards the first exception, before it can be invoked to deny bail to a juvenile there must be a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The expression ‘known criminal’ is not without significance when the liberty of a juvenile is sought to be curtailed by employing the exception, the exception must be construed strictly. Therefore, before this exception is invoked, the prosecution must identify the 'known criminal', and then the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile if released would associate with this 'known criminal'. It cannot be generally observed that the release of the juvenile would bring him into association with criminals without identifying the criminals and without returning a prima facie finding with regard to the nexus between the juvenile and such criminals. 16. A similar view has been taken in Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, PLR (2004) 136 P & H 497 wherein, it was observed as under: "7....The reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him 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 an 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. 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 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." 14. Careful perusal of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Allahabad High Court clearly suggests that the reasonable grounds for believing that release of CCL is likely to bring him 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 denying bail to the juvenile on the said ground, there must be an 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. “Reason to believe” excludes mere suspicion, meaning thereby, mere registration of a case under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act may not be sufficient for the court to arrive at a conclusion that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, CCL may come in contact of the known criminal or indulge in these activities again. Section 13 (1) (ii) of the Act, specifically provides for a report of a probation officer, who is otherwise under obligation to submit a report to the I.O. within two weeks, with regard to the social behaviour of the child under the aforesaid act. The social investigation report, which is defined in Rule 2 XVII of the Act, clearly provides detailed information pertaining to the circumstances of the child, the situation of the child on economic, social, psycho-social and other relevant factors, and the recommendation thereon. The social investigation report, which is defined in Rule 2 XVII of the Act, clearly provides detailed information pertaining to the circumstances of the child, the situation of the child on economic, social, psycho-social and other relevant factors, and the recommendation thereon. Afore report becomes important for the inquiry to be done by the Board while passing such orders in relation to such a child as it deems fit under Sections 17 and 18 of this Act. Similarly, aforesaid report also becomes handy while considering prayer made on behalf of the CCL for bail under Section 12. 12. Allahabad High Court also held in X Vs. State of U.P. and another MANU/UP/1378/2023 held that where the DPO report does not disclose that the release of CCL would bering him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, he is to be released on bail. It was observed:- “9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that admittedly, the revisionist was 16 years 8 months and 7 days at the date of the incident and that is evident from the impugned order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, it is established that the revisionist is a juvenile. This Court has noticed the fact that the DPO report does not disclose the fact that the release of the revisionist shall bring him in association with any unknown criminal or expose the revisionist to moral, physical or psychological danger. Further, so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the FIR has been lodged by the grandmother of the revisionist and she is not an eyewitness. The other witnesses are also not eyewitnesses in the instant matter and only on a hearsay basis, the bail of the revisionist has been rejected. 10. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Juvenile 'X' through his father in Criminal Revision No. 2318 of 2021 has also settled the law and this Court finds that the case of the present revisionist is also covered with the ratio of the judgment aforesaid.” 13. A similar view was taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mahesh Rao v. State of M.P. , 2023 SCC OnLine MP 6897: ILR 2023 MP 1661 wherein it was observed at page 1664: “9. A similar view was taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mahesh Rao v. State of M.P. , 2023 SCC OnLine MP 6897: ILR 2023 MP 1661 wherein it was observed at page 1664: “9. Provisions of Section 12 of “J.J. Act, 2015” manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety. The juvenile shall not be released in certain circum- stances as the latter part of the section also uses the word shall imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the juvenile by the J.J. Board. If there are any reasonable grounds for believing; (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 and would defeat the ends of justice. 10. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of “J.J. Act, 2015”, it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have been com- mitted by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into an asso- ciation of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the of- fence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of “J.J. Act, 2015” is available. 11. In case of Narayan Sharma v. State of M.P., ILR 2012 MP 796 a Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the provision of the Section 12 of the Act observed as under: “In the opinion of this court, the Juvenile Justice Board may be justified in denying bail to a juvenile involved in a heinous crime only if there is material before it to form a prima facie opinion on the aspects carved out as exception to rule of bail in section 12 of the Act itself. There must be some mechanism with the Juvenile Justice Board to gather material and form an opinion as to whether the juvenile need to be denied bail by bringing his case under the exceptions to bail engrafted in Section 12. The opinion to be formed by the Board, by no means, can be subjective and has to be objective. Ei- ther the prosecution should place some prima facie material before the Board or the Court to show that re- lease of a juvenile on bail may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger of the Board may ob- tain a report from the Probation Officer attached to the Board regarding antecedents and circumstances attended to the juvenile, both pre and post crime and it is only thereafter the Board or the Court should crystal- lize its opinion regarding release or non release of the juvenile on bail, though involved in a heinous crime. A reference to the statutory provisions governing bail to a juvenile contained in section 12 would show that there is a mandate of law that the juvenile has to be re- leased on bail, except only in those cases where the case fall in one or the other exception engrafted by the legislature in Section 12 itself.” 12. It has been observed in Pratap Singh v. State of Jhark hand, 2005 SCC (Cri) 742 , that: “the whole object of the Act is to provide for the care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected delinquent juveniles. It is a beneficial legislation aimed at to make available the benefit of the Act to the neglected or delinquent juveniles. It is settled law that the interpretation of the statute of beneficial legislation must be to advance the cause of legislation to the benefit for whom it is made and not to frustrate the intendment of the legislation.” 13. Further it has been observed in Sanjay Chaura sia v. State of U.P., (2006) 55 ACC 480 that: “10. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable grounds for believing above mentioned exceptions must be brought before the Court concerned by the prosecution but in the present case, no such ground for believing any of the above mentioned exception has been brought by the prosecution before the Juve- nile Justice Board and Appellate Court. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable grounds for believing above mentioned exceptions must be brought before the Court concerned by the prosecution but in the present case, no such ground for believing any of the above mentioned exception has been brought by the prosecution before the Juve- nile Justice Board and Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal only on the presumption that due to commission of this offence, the father and other relatives of other kidnapped boy had developed enmity with the revisionist, that is why in case of his release, the physical and mental life of the revisionist will be in danger and his release will defeat the ends of justice but substantial to this presumption no material has been brought before the appellate court and the same has not been discussed and only on the basis of the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board has refused the bail of the revisionist which is in the present case is unjustified and against the spirit of the Act.” 14. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the bail application of a child in conflict with the law cannot be rejected merely on the ground of seriousness of the crime. The only exception to grant of bail to a child in conflict with the law is the reasonable ground for believing that release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 14. Karnataka High Court also took a similar view in Manoj (supra) and observed as under: - “13. In view of Section 13 (1)(ii) of the JJ Act, 2015, no sooner CCWL is apprehended and produced before the JJ Board, the Probation Officer has to be informed. The JJ Board has to call for a Social Investigation Report which has been defined in Rule 2 (xvii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The said report becomes vital for enquiry to be done by the Board while passing orders in relation to such child as it deems fit under Sections 17 and 18 of the JJ Act. Rule 10 envisages post-production processes by the Board and the Social Investigation Report for children in conflict with law has to be secured in Form No. 6. 14. Rule 10 envisages post-production processes by the Board and the Social Investigation Report for children in conflict with law has to be secured in Form No. 6. 14. In the present case, it appears from the records that the JJ Board has called for the report from the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Belagavi Road, Dharwad, with regard to the mental condition of all CCWLs. The learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the certified copy of the report submitted by DIMHANS. The report would reveal that apart from the medical condition of CCWL, the family background and other requirements have been collected. However, in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, a Social Investigation Report for children in conflict with the law has to be secured in Form No. 6 from the Probation Officer/Voluntary/Non-governmental Organization. 15. Learned counsel for appellant in support of his contention that JJ Board was under legal obligation to secure Social Investigation Report from the Probation Officer and the said report has to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application filed under Section 12 of the JJ Act, relied on the latest judgment of Allahabad High Court in XXX Juvenile Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another disposed of on 25.04.2023 The Social Information Report of the Probation Officer has to be the basis for the JJ Board while deciding the bail application or to pass any order keeping in mind the welfare and well-being of the child. It has been further held that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the JJ Act, 2015 is available. The Social Investigation Report from the Probation Officer has to be obtained within the time slot fixed in terms of Section 13 (1) of the JJ Act in Form No. 6. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in paragraph 20 of its judgment has held as follows: "20. 'Form-6' of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, contains a detailed proforma of the social investigation report. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in paragraph 20 of its judgment has held as follows: "20. 'Form-6' of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, contains a detailed proforma of the social investigation report. The report has three parts; the first part requires the Probation Officer to give the data or information regarding the close relatives in the family, delinquency records of the family, social and economic status, ethical code of the family, attitude towards religion, the relationship amongst the family members, the relationship with the parents, living conditions, etc. Thereafter, the report requires the Probation Officer to provide the child's history regarding his mental condition, physical condition, habits, interests, personality traits, neighbourhood, neighbours' report, school, employment, if any, friends, the child being subject to any form of abuse, circumstances of apprehension of the child, mental condition of the child. The most important part of the report is the third part i.e., the result of inquiry where the Probation Officer is required to inform the Board about the emotional factors, physical condition, intelligence, social and economic factors, suggestive cause of the problems, analysis of the case including reasons/contributing factors for the offence, opinion of experts consulted and recommendation regarding rehabilitation by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer. It is incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice Board to take into consideration the social investigation report and make an objective assessment on the reasonable grounds for rejecting the bail application of the juvenile." 16. Keeping in mind the above referred legal requirement for deciding the bail application of CCWL in terms of Section 12 of the JJ Act, the Social Assessment Report obtained by the JJ Board from DIMHANS, Dharwad, as produced by the learned Government Pleader is perused though not in prescribed Form No. 6 by the Probation Officer. The report with reference to CCWL-4 goes to show that in the first part regarding mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence, it is reported that neglect/poor supervision by the family members. Intellectual disability is reported as IQ-104 average intelligence. In the second part-family history, it is reported that the family belongs to middle socio- economic status, the father committed suicide, single parenting and is poorly attached to family members. School history reveals that he is a dropped-out student of I PUC and has no history of child labour. Intellectual disability is reported as IQ-104 average intelligence. In the second part-family history, it is reported that the family belongs to middle socio- economic status, the father committed suicide, single parenting and is poorly attached to family members. School history reveals that he is a dropped-out student of I PUC and has no history of child labour. Peer relationships-negative peer influences, spend more time with peer groups, hence, are more vulnerable to peer influences. Regarding abuse and trauma history is suggestive of abuse and trauma. In the third part, the child's knowledge of the consequences of committing the alleged offence, it is reported that the child's understanding of social/interpersonal and legal consequences of committing the offence is reported to be poor and other observations is concealing information related to the incident. The recommendations are family counselling, individual therapy-life style modification/life skills training. Long term follow up with mental health professionals, vocational rehabilitation/training. 15. In the present case, the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, shows that the social background report was placed before the Board in which it was mentioned that the CCL was regular in attending the school. He was suffering from an ailment of kidney which made his parents to be overprotective for him. This report nowhere reads that the CCL was abandoned by his family as was held by the learned Courts below. It shows that the parents were overprotective of CCL in view of his ailment of the kidney. Hence, the reasons recorded by learned Courts below are not supported by the social background report. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 4.12.2013 and 6.11.2023 are quashed and set aside, and CCL is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the CCL will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the Natural Guardian/father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) The natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits. (iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of April, 2025, and if, during any calendar month, the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day. (iv) 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.