there were four accused persons excluding the present appellant, but subsequently, his name has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused. Counsel further submits that the alleged date of occurrence is 02.09.2017, and at that time, the present appellant was a juvenile. Regarding juvenility, the Principal Magistrate passed an order on 21.04.2022, declaring the appellant to be a juvenile. Counsel further submits that in the rejection order, it has come that there is direct allegation against the present appellant that he had committed heinous offence of double murder but, on the other hand, he submits that the appellant is not an accused but rather a child in conflict with the law on the date of the occurrence, and his case should not be treated in the same manner as that of other accused persons. Counsel submits that the fundamental principles of jurisprudence on juvenility are in favor of the appellant. Counsel further submits that it is also true that there are six criminal cases pending against the appellant but in all the cases he is on bail. Counsel further submits that the appellant is recognized as a juvenile, therefore, all benefits available to a juvenile should be applicable to the present appellant. Counsel further submits that the mother of the appellant is ready to undertake for personal care of her son and she is also ready that
