SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have raised no complaint regarding audio and visual quality.
(2.) The instant bail application is being heard by the Division Bench of this Court on reference being made by the learned Single Judge vide order 17.10.2020, on the issue of maintainability of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for juvenile or remedy under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 2015'), as two divergent views have been expressed on the issue in question. For ready reference, the reference made by learned Single Judge, to answer by the Division Bench, is quoted hereunder as: "(i)Whether in view of sub section (5) of Section 101 of the Act, an appeal is maintainable in a case where bail filed by a juvenile under the Act is rejected by the Children's Court? (ii)Whether the order dated 11.12.2017, passed by the Coordinate Bench in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.2119 of 2017 [Sahabuddin Ansari @ Nannu Ansari @ Md. Sahabuddin Ansari versus The State of Jharkhand and Another], holding that appeal is not maintainable, is good a law or not?"
(3.) Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bail petition for grant of regular bail, being M.C.A. No. 847 of 2020, was filed on behalf of petitioner, Guddu Kumar Singh, a juvenile, who is languishing in observation home since 08.11.2019 in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 199 of 2020 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Dhanbad, which was rejected vide order dated 17.06.2020.;