[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Shekh Aashif Shekh Sandu Kureshi Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/490/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 490 of
2026
==========================================================
SHEKH AASHIF SHEKH SANDU KURESHI THRO IMRAN AHMED SHEKH
& ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ARJUNSINGH B CHAUHAN(11510) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 15/04/2026
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.
1.1 The present Criminal Revision Application No.490 of 2026
is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in
Criminal Juvenile Appeal No.958 of 2025 dated 27.01.2026.
The application is filed by the child-in-conflict-with-law (for
short, 'CCL') through his uncle.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Arjunsingh Chauhan submitted
that the age of the CCL has been noted as 16 years, 11
months and 13 days. Advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that
the order of the appellate Court does not reflect any order
under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/490/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
the Juvenile Justice Board. Advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted
that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court
was required to consider the bail application in accordance to
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
2.1 The evidence on record suggests that the deceased had
earlier beaten the CCL for a quarrel with regard to a mobile
and thereafter, the date of incident refers to many unknown
persons who had come in a rickshaw and submitted that mere
presence of a knife in the hands of the present CCL with the
blood would not itself be made a ground for considering that
CCL had inflicted the blows, where other major accused after
the incident had told the complainant i.e. the wife of the
deceased "apna kaam ho gaya he". Advocate Mr. Chauhan
submitted that the police was required to inquire further
regarding the incident and should have found out actually what
had transpired during the incident.
3. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma referred to the statement
of one - Aman friend of the deceased and owner of pan-shop
to submit about the incident having taken place and submitted
that the knife was in the hand of the CCL and he was the
person who had inflicted the blows.
4. The complaint of Jayvanti Arjunbhai Vadvi - wife of the
deceased on 10.08.2025 refers to the quarrel of her husband
with the present CCL and another juvenile were with regard to
mobile and according to her, because of that enmity, the
incident had taken place where CCL as well as the other six
adults were in the incident and the four of the persons had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/490/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
confronted the deceased stating "mara mitra Imran ne kem
maar marel che" and thereby had assaulted the husband with
that intention with the weapon. According to her statement,
her husband's friend - Amansingh was caught hold by them
and was given blow with the wooden batton and fisticuffs and
her husband was inflicted blows by the CCL, co-accused Razik
and another two persons with the knife on the back of the
right leg thigh and the back.
5. The incident, thus, alleged also refers that prior to the
present alleged incident, the deceased was confronted by
another friend of the CCL on the ground that why the
deceased had quarreled with the CCL. The incident does not
appear to be directly pointing out to the CCL, rather all the
adults had gone there to confront the deceased asking him the
cause of beating the CCL. The complaint does not specify that
it was this CCL, who had inflicted blows, when other adults
were along with him, the role of the adult accused does not
get specified. The Probation Officer's report does not reflect
anything adverse against the CCL.
6. 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)
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/490/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/490/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/490/2026 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
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."
7. Having considered the role and the object of the J.J. Act,
the present application succeeds and is allowed and is
disposed of accordingly. The child in conflict with law is
ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR
No.11210054252049/2025 registered before Sachin Police
Station, Surat on the applicant's uncle executing a personal
bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with a condition that he would take
care of the child for his good behavior and his well being.
8. It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the
conduct of the child in conflict with law 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.
9. Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
PARMAR KRISH/19
