PRINCE KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) At the very outset, learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State has made objections about the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application with regard to the child in conflict with law (in short CICL) who is involved in this case which is heinous in nature. He has also argued that Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as J.J. Act) does not make any provision regarding applicability of Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. and Ss. 10 and 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are complete code in themselves. He has also argued that child in conflict with law has no apprehension of arrest in this case because arrest of any child in conflict with law is not permissible under the Act, 2015.