SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the rejection of bail to a youth accused of facilitating the movement of terrorists involved in the 2020 Ban Toll Plaza attack, holding that his alleged links with a Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed handler and other accused persons provided sufficient grounds to deny his release under the Juvenile Justice Act.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and M A Chowdhary dismissed an appeal filed by Suheel Javaid Lone, observing that the material on record supported the apprehensions that his release could expose him to harmful influences and potentially bring him into contact with persons allegedly connected with a terrorist organisation.
The judgment, pronounced on October 29 and uploaded on October 30, upheld the November 17, 2025, order of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jammu, designated as the Children’s Court, rejecting his bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Bench, however, clarified that the observations made in deciding the bail plea would not influence the trial, which must be decided independently on the basis of evidence. It also granted the petitioner liberty to seek bail afresh if there was a material change in circumstances.
The appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, read with Sections 101 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, in connection with FIR No. 45/2020, subsequently re-registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as RC-02/2020/NIA/Jammu.
The case originated on January 31, 2020, when a police party led by ASI Rajinder Singh, accompanied by SgCt Kartar Singh, Constable Boom Raj and CISF personnel, was deployed at Ban Toll Plaza in Jammu for checking vehicles.
At around 5.30 am, a truck bearing registration number JK03F-1478, travelling from Jammu towards Srinagar, was stopped for checking. According to the prosecution, terrorists travelling in the vehicle opened indiscriminate fire at police and security personnel, injuring Constable Boom Raj.
Following an order issued by the Union Home Ministry on February 7, 2020, the investigation was transferred to the NIA, which re-registered the case. The agency subsequently identified six persons, including Lone, as allegedly involved in a conspiracy to facilitate the movement of terrorists and carry out an attack on security forces.
The prosecution alleged that Lone, while attending coaching classes in Ambala, Haryana, came into contact through social media with Abdul Rehman, described as a Pakistan-based handler associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed.
He was also allegedly in close contact with co-accused Sameer Ahmad Dar, who was driving the truck involved in the case, and facilitated the transportation of terrorists from the Jammu region towards the Kashmir Valley during the intervening night of December 22 and 23, 2019.
The NIA filed a charge-sheet against the adult accused before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on July 27, 2020. As Lone was found to be 17 years, five months and 11 days old at the time of the alleged incident, a separate charge-sheet was filed against him before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Jammu.
On November 4, 2020, the Principal Magistrate of the JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act and concluded that Lone possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence, understand its consequences and appreciate the circumstances in which it was committed.
The Board consequently directed that he be tried as an adult and transferred the case to the competent court. The NIA Court framed charges against him on October 11, 2021, under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The case was subsequently transferred to the Fast Track Court, Jammu, functioning as the Children’s Court.
During the appeal, counsel for Lone argued that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which provides special protection to children in conflict with law in matters of bail, irrespective of whether the alleged offences are bailable or non-bailable.
The defence maintained that the decision to try Lone as an adult did not deprive him of his status as a child under the Act or the statutory protection available under Section 12.
His counsel further argued that the seriousness of the allegations or the nature of the offences could not, by themselves, justify denial of bail. The trial court, it was submitted, was required to record specific reasons establishing that his release would attract one or more of the exceptions provided under the law.
The defence also pointed out that Lone had remained in custody since February 9, 2020, while the trial had not concluded and there was no likelihood of its early completion. It sought setting aside of the impugned order and his release on bail.
Opposing the appeal, the NIA submitted that the investigation material prima facie established Lone’s alleged involvement in facilitating the movement of terrorists and his contacts with a Pakistan-based handler and other accused persons.
The agency argued that his release without adequate safeguards could enable him to re-establish contact with such individuals, exposing him to moral and psychological influences and potentially prejudicing the course of justice.
Examining the rival submissions, the High Court explained that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act ordinarily entitles a child in conflict with law to bail, subject to three exceptions: the likelihood of association with known criminals, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or the possibility that release would defeat the ends of justice.
The Bench emphasised that the gravity or heinousness of an alleged offence, by itself, was not sufficient to deny bail under the provision.
It observed that a child directed to be tried as an adult under Section 19 of the Act does not cease to be a child within the meaning of Section 2(12) and continues to enjoy the protection available under Section 12.
The court also clarified that under Section 8(2) of the Act, the powers conferred on the Juvenile Justice Board could be exercised by the High Court and the Children’s Court when proceedings came before them under Section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise.
“There can be no quarrel with this proposition. The seriousness of the allegations, the heinousness of offence and that the offence is non-bailable cannot be grounds to jettison the statutory requirements of Section 12,” the Bench observed.
However, it held that the exceptions under the provision could be invoked where reasonable apprehensions were supported by material on record rather than mere conjecture.
In Lone’s case, the Bench found that the alleged contact with a Pakistan-based handler associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, continued communication with the co-accused and the role attributed to him in facilitating the movement of terrorists were relevant circumstances supporting the prosecution’s apprehensions.
The court also considered the petitioner’s prolonged custody but held that the period of detention, although relevant, could not be examined in isolation from the other circumstances.
“The period of safe custody, though relevant, does not by itself warrant interference with the impugned order,” the judgment stated.
The Bench further observed that the Juvenile Justice Act was reformative and rehabilitative in nature, and a child in conflict with law could not be treated on a par with an adult accused merely because the allegations were serious. However, it said the statutory exceptions under Section 12(1) had to be given effect where the material justified their application.
Concluding that the trial court had properly considered the relevant material and recorded sufficient reasons for denying bail, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the November 17, 2025, order.
Advocates Jahangir Ahmed Wani and Aditya Pandita appeared for Lone, while Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Karan Sharma and NIA Public Prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma represented the investigating agency.
