and thus there cannot be any apprehension of arrest, so an application at the instance of the child in conflict with law, either before the High Court or before the Court of Sessions, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Mr. Ratan also referred another case law in Piyush, minor through his natural mother Smt. Nirmla Devi wife of Sh. Narender Vs. State of Haryana [(2021) 3 Crimes(HC) 138] , wherein, a Single Judge also held that petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. preferred by a juvenile is not maintainable. Mr. Ratan also made a reference to a judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kureshi Irfan Hasambhai Thro Kureshi Kalubhai Hasambhai Vs. State of Gujarat [Criminal Misc. Application No. 6978 of 2021] , wherein, it has been held that the application is maintainable. Referring to another case law, in - Suhana Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal [CRM No. 2739 of 2021] , Mr. Ratan pointed out that a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench to decide as to whether or not an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, at the instance of the minor (juvenile), is maintainable in view of the decision of co-ordinate Bench of that Court, wherein it has been held that petition is not maintainable. But, the line of discussion made by the Division Bench, which referred the matter to a larger bench, in the said case, accordingly to Mr. Ratan, it can be inferred that the petition is maintainable. Accordingly, Mr. Ratan contended to allow the petition.
