Gujarat High Court
Om @ Premlo Pankajbhai Jethv Thro. His ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 863 of
2026
==========================================================
OM @ PREMLO PANKAJBHAI JETHV THRO. HIS GUARDIAN PANKAJ
BHUPATBHAI JETHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 20/04/2026
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.
2. The Child in conflict with law (herein after referred to as 'the CCL'), by way of the present revision application filed through his father, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as 'the J.J. Act'), challenges the order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2025 confirming the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in CRMA J No.17088 of 2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Surat in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11210060251058 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 352 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined short 'BNS 2023') and Section 135 of the G.P. Act registered before the Varachha Police Station, Surat dated 12.04.2025.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Raajen D.Jadhav referring to the facts of the case submitted that the knife, as has has been attributed to the CCL, who was aged about 16 years and 3 months, has not been recovered from the possession of the CCL. Mr. Jadhav stated that the fact of the case rather shows that it was the complainant, his elder brother and his friend, who were going triple seat, had gone towards the CCL and the co-accused, Gautam @ Choteraja Budhabhai @ Surabhai Jodhabhai Gohil aged 18 years and 4 months. Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that the complainant was aged about 58 years, deceased was 59 years and friend of the complainant Surendra was aged about 68 years.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that, as per the complaint, it was the deceased, who had flicked on head of CCL and the co-accused after alighting from the vehicle and submitted that considering the age of the deceased, his brother and his friend, to that of age of the CCL aged about 16 years and 3 months and the co-accused, who had just completed 18 years, the quarrel has to be examined.
3.2 Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that the actual fact is not coming on record, since it is only the complainant's version, which is on record; what had occurred for the CCL and the co- accused to take the law in hands have not been brought on record. Mr. Jadhav submitted that the act may be for right of Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined private defence, and submitted that the recovery of the knife was from the co-accused.
4. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the State submitted that the observation of the learned appellate Court is that the CCL had inflicted the blows with rambo knife and the quarrel was because the CCL and co-accused had on their Moped intervened the passage by coming in front. Learned APP stated that since the present CCL had inflicted the blows, the order of the appellate Court is required to be upheld.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The appellate Court has not recorded of any order passed below Section 15 of the J.J. Act. It has not become clear whether the appellate Court has been functioning as a Children Court. Though, reference has been made of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the observation of the J.J. Board or the Children's Court under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, to observe by way of preliminary assessment, the mental and physical capacity of the CCL to commit such offence or the ability to understand the consequences of the offence.
5.1 The appellate Court was required to assess the facts of the case even from the point of view of the CCL, where the CCL was facing the complainant, his friend and the deceased, who were more than 55 years of age. What had actually transpired at the time of incident for the CCL, who was aged about 16 years 3 months and the co-accused - Gautam @ Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined Choteraja Budhabhai @ Surabhai Jodhabhai Gohil, aged about 18 years and four months, to inflict blow with the rambo knife, where the issue was that both the CCL and the co-accused allegedly had come in front of vehicle of the complainant, who were travelling in the motorcycle as three sitter, and as per the facts of the case, the deceased and his friend Surendra alighted from the vehicle and had gone towards the CCL and the co-accused and the deceased had flicked the CCL and the co-accused on head. It is stated that both CCL and co-accused had followed them opposite one hospital, and the person who was driving the Moped, as per the charge-sheet, exhorted and instigated the CCL, who had inflicted the blow with knife.
6. Section 12 of the J.J. Act clearly overrides the bail provisions as contained in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force. Section 12 of the Act, as could be read in its true meaning shows bail to the juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception. The refusal of the bail can only be on the following grounds:
(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring that person in association with any known criminal or,
(ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or,
(iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of justice.Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 6.1 The use of expression "such person shall be released on bail" in section 12(1) of the J.J. Act shows that the grant of bail to the juvenile is mandatory unless grounds for denial of the bail overweight the concession of bail. Seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant consideration for denial of the bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. Section 12 of the J.J. Act in consonance with the object of the Act intents not to punish the CCL, but to reform and rehabilitate them by proper care, protection, development and social reintegration by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of the matter in the best interest.
7. In the case of Child in Conflict with Law Through Savitaben Vitthalbhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 244005 (passed in CRRA No.901 of 2021 on 28.04.2022), it has been observed as under:
17. Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 which deals with the grant of bail to a child expressly contains the nonobstante phrase to be as ".... notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail ...". This very provision in Section 12 clarifies that provisions of Cr.PC is excluded in the case of bail plea of the child. Further, it requires to be noted that Section 12 is a specific provision under the special statute that deals with the matter of bail and accordingly, the application of Section 439 of the Cr.PC is also necessarily excluded. Cr.PC contains a corresponding clause which is for application on special lines. Considering this aspect in case of a bail application on behalf a child, it would be required to be concluded that such bail plea would not be maintable under Section 439 of Cr.PC.
19. Non-applicability of Section 439 of Cr.PC in case of child in conflict with law has been appreciated by Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined various High Courts. This Court would like to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CCL 'A' v. State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Application No.2510/2020 (dated 19.10.2020), where the Court had observed as under :-
"44. In formulating the above position, this court finds support in the view taken by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Tejram Nagrachi Juvenile vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer4, where the Division Bench has opined that an application for grant of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. or 439 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable in the case of a juvenile. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under:
"7. A conjoint analysis of the provisions contained in Sections 437 and 439 of the Code viz a viz Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Act, 2015 would discern that while there are certain general guidelines under Sections 437 & 439 of the Code, power in respect of grant of bail to a juvenile is more liberal in the nature of command under Section 12(1) that whenever an apparent juvenile alleged to have committed a bailable or nonbailable offence is detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The only rider for not releasing the apparent juvenile is that whenever there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person (Juvenile) into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. This rider as contained in proviso to Section 12(1) requires the Board to record reasons for denying the bail. It would mean that ordinarily the bail is to be allowed to a juvenile. The denial being exceptional on certain reasons to be recorded by the Board as provided in the proviso. This special provision is not contained under Section 439 of the Code.
"8. .......... While there is no denial of the fact that when the Court of Sessions exercises appellate power under Section 101(2) and the High Court exercises revisional power under Section 102 of the Act of 2015, it shall exercise power of the Board provided under Section 8(2), but this power of the Board would also be available to the Court of Sessions or to the High Court Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined when it proceeds to examine the plea of juvenile for grant of bail whenever such occasion arises on account of bail application of juvenile being rejected under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. Therefore, by use of the term "otherwise" in Section 8(2), jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code would not be attracted which is otherwise excluded by use of the term "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force", as occurring in Section 12 (1)." (emphasis supplied)
20. The law therefore, is clear on the aspect that since Section 12 of the JJ Act bears a non-obstante clause which indicates legislative intent that the source of power to grant bail under the JJ Act, 2015 is independent from that of the Cr.PC. Thus, it can be said to be concluded that Section 439 of the Cr.PC is not applicable on the issue of grant or denial of bail to a child alleged to have committed bailable or non- bailable offence who is to be dealt with by the Special Statute, i.e. JJ Act, 2015 which contains the specific provision for bail under Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015."
8. The case of Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.950 of 2022, was declared on 13.07.2022 [(2023) 12 SCC 401]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with section 15 of the J.J. Act for preliminary assessment of child in conflict with law, observed as under:
"65. While considering a child as an adult one needs to look at his/her physical maturity, cognitive abilities, social and emotional competencies. It must be mentioned here that from a neurobiological perspective, the development of cognitive, behavioural attributes like the ability to delay gratification, decision making, risk taking, impulsivity, judgement, etc. continues until the early 20s. It is, therefore, all the more important that such assessment is made to distinguish such attributes between a child and an adult.
66. Cognitive maturation is highly dependent on hereditary factors. Emotional development is less likely to affect cognitive maturation. However, if emotions are too intense and the child is unable to regulate Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined emotions effectively, then intellectual insight/knowledge may take a back seat.
70. A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence. For example, risky driving may result in an accident. But if emotional competence is not high, the urge for thrill seeking may get the better of his intellectual understanding.
71. Children may be geared towards more instant gratification and may not be able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason. Research shows that young people do know risks to themselves. Despite this knowledge, adolescents engage in riskier behaviour than adults (such as drug and alcohol use, unsafe sexual activity, dangerous driving and/or delinquent behaviour). While they do consider risks cognitively (by weighing up the potential risks and rewards of a particular act), their decisions / actions may be more heavily influenced by social (e.g. peer influences) and/or emotional (e.g. impulsive) tendencies. In addition, the lack of experience coupled with the child's limited ability to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions can lead to impulsive / reckless decision making.
8.1 In Barun Chandra Thakur (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the factum of cognitive maturation, observing intense emotion, likely to affect the cognitive maturation, the child with average intelligence may have the knowledge of the consequences of his action, but his ability to control himself in his actions depends on his level of emotional competence.
9. The appellate Court while considering the bail application of the CCL has to keep in mind the object behind the provision of Section 12. The bail becomes a rule and denying it would become an exception. It is only when the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined learned JJB and the appellate Court come to the conclusion that if the CCL is released, then it would bring him in association with known criminal or expose the CCL to moral, physical or psychological danger or the CCL's release would defeat the ends of justice.
10. The expression 'end of justice' has to be dealt in accordance with the facts of the case. The learned JJB has not referred to the preliminary assessment report, while dealing with the bail application of the CCL aged about 16 years 3 months, even the appellate Court has not called for the Probation Officer's report to consider the mental and physical capacity of the CCL to commit such an offence and his ability to understand the consequences of the offence. The appellate Court has also not observed, whether the CCL was ordered to be tried as an adult, and there is no observation to the effect, whether Children Court has exercised the power to reevaluate the preliminary assessment report of the JJB, if at all considered for the CCL to be tried as an adult.
10.1 Both the JJB as well as the Children Court dealt with the bail application, as if it was dealing with the case for an adult under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
11. Having considered the facts of the case and the joint recovery of the rambo knife as has been shown in the charge sheet and when the actual incident does not become clear vis- a-vis the complainant, deceased and his friend to that of CCL and his friend and when the trial will take its own time to Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/863/2026 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined conclude, this Court considers that the CCL is required to be released on bail. Hence, the present CCL is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.11210060251058 of 2025 registered before the Varachha Police Station, Surat on the applicant's father executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with a condition that father would take care of his child for his good behaviour and his well being.
12. It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the conduct of the CCL and shall quarterly submit the report before the concerned Board/Children's Court till completion of the trial. Moreover, if the Probation Officer considers any necessity of sending the juvenile for any behavior modification then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to the child in conflict with law.
13. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
14. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/149 Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 22:35:17 IST 2026