P&H High Court Directs Courts Not To Disclose Identity Of Children In Conflict With Law In Judicial Records, Cause Lists
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that the name or any identifying particulars of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) shall not be disclosed in any judicial order, judgment, or other publicly accessible judicial record, holding that the protection under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 extends to judicial proceedings even though...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that the name or any identifying particulars of a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) shall not be disclosed in any judicial order, judgment, or other publicly accessible judicial record, holding that the protection under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 extends to judicial proceedings even though the provision does not expressly use the words "Court" or "Judge." [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 298].
Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that such an omission in the statutory text "cannot be construed as conferring any liberty upon a Court to disclose the identity of a child in conflict with law," since "the object and purpose of the statutory protection would stand defeated" if a child's identity, protected at the inquiry and investigation stages, were disclosed at the judicial stage instead.
"The child shall, wherever necessary, be referred to only as “Child in Conflict with Law”, or by an appropriate anonymised reference. The aforesaid mandate shall be duly followed by all Courts subordinate to this Court and by all concerned authorities in the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Registry of this Court shall also ensure, to the extent administratively permissible, that the name or any other particulars capable of identifying a Child in Conflict with Law are not disclosed in the cause title, cause lists, orders, judgments or other publicly accessible judicial records," it added.
The appeal arose from the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, in a case registered under Sections 110, 115, 126(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to which Sections 190, 191(2), 109(1) and 61 BNS, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were subsequently added.
The prosecution case was that a Class 10 student was assaulted by five to six persons near his school and again near a bus stand, the assailants allegedly showing him a photograph of the appellant and stating they had come at his instance over an earlier altercation in March 2026. When the complainant's cousin intervened, he too was allegedly assaulted with sticks and rods. The appellant's role, as alleged, was confined to sending an Instagram message with the complainant's photograph to the co-accused, purportedly provoking them to "teach him a lesson."
The appellant, a 15-year-old, argued through counsel that he was not present at the scene, did not assault the complainant or use any casteist language, and that his alleged role was limited to sending a message — requiring no custodial interrogation or recovery. He had no criminal antecedents and was willing to join the investigation.
The State opposed bail, contending that the appellant was the "main accused" who had provoked the assault, and that offences under the SC/ST Act stood added.
The Court noted that the trial court had declined bail on the ground that the appellant was in contact with persons having criminal antecedents , but found no material on record that the co-accused actually had any such antecedents.
Setting out Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court held that bail to a CCL can be declined only on one of three specified grounds: reasonable grounds to believe release would bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Finding none of these established, the appellant not having been present at the occurrence, and his role, even as alleged, being limited, the Court held the trial court's order unsustainable.
Holding that apprehension of the appellant was not warranted having regard to his age, the limited role attributed to him, and the welfare of the juvenile, the Court granted interim anticipatory bail, directing him to join the investigation and appear as required, with terms under Section 482(2) BNSS to apply in the event of arrest.
Case Title: [Name withheld] v. State of Haryana and another
CRA-S-2611-2026 | Date of Order: 24.08.2026
Appearances: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Mr. Varunveer Chauhan, Advocate, for the complainant.