Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to minor accused of ‘Babbar Khalsa links’

“The reasons assigned by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Kaithal, in our considered opinion, do not conform to the statutory parameters prescribed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (bail mandatory for child in conflict with the law),” the July 6 order read.

The court noted that the petitioner’s father had already expired, and the children’s court had stated that since he was under the strong influence of social media, it was necessary to keep him away from it for his own benefit, as any such exposure, coupled with a lack of parental care, is likely to induce the petitioner to further unlawful activities.

Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur found that the social investigation report only mentioned the boy’s internet addiction and susceptibility to peer group influence.

‘ITI student, social media influence’

The petitioner claimed that he was pursuing an ITI course when, on April 6, 2025, at around 5.20 am, an explosion allegedly took place behind the building situated within the boundary wall of the police post. Subsequently, a social media post allegedly issued by the Babbar Khalsa terrorist organisation claimed responsibility for the blast.

On inquiry, it was found that the incident was a grenade attack on the police personnel deployed at the police post. An FIR was registered, and the petitioner was arrested on April 18, 2025.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail by the juvenile board, he appealed in the children’s court, which too was rejected, noting that the petitioner’s strong influence of social media, coupled with a lack of parental care, is likely to induce him to further unlawful activities.

‘Phone use does not indicate unlawful activity’

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vivek Sharma argued that the boy’s allegedly excessive use of mobile phones or social media or his peer group influence are by themselves not sufficient to conclude that he had any nexus with the Khalistan Zindabad Force or that was associated with any unlawful activities.

Sharma added that the social investigation report does not indicate that, if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to be exposed to any physical, psychological and immoral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Deputy advocate general Chhavi Sharma appeared for the state and opposed the bail application.

Only one parent is deceased: HC

The high court noted that the social investigation report only mentioned the boy’s internet addiction, his exposure to social media and susceptibility to peer group influence.

Noting that the state has not clarified whether any other elder member of the family or parent is available to supervise the petitioner, the court added, “Mere demise of one of the parents, by itself, would not lead to a presumption that the petitioner is devoid of any parental control.”

“…taking into consideration the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well as the absence of statutory grounds warranting denial of bail, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody for 01 year, 02 months and 12 days, we are of the view that ordinarily a child-in-conflict with law is to be released on bail…,” the high court held.