[Cites 29, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Pankaj @ Pankya @ Tufan S/O Sarjerav ... vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1963
of 2025
==========================================================
PANKAJ @ PANKYA @ TUFAN S/O SARJERAV DAULAT PATIL THRO
PATIL MANISHA SARJIRAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/04/2026
ORDER
1. The present revision application has been filed under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (for short, the 'JJ Act') challenging the
judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Surat dated 25.08.2025 rejecting the Criminal Appeal
No.633 of 2025 confirming the order dated 25.07.2025 in
CRMA-J No.11934 of 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Surat.
2. The offences have been registered with Dindoli Police
Station, Surat as FIR being CR. No.11210056241461 of 2024
dated 17.06.2024 under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 34,
201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and
under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Sections 3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav for the child-in-
conflict-with-law (for short, 'CCL'), who was aged about 17
years, 5 months, 12 days at the time of the incident, has filed
the petition through the mother, submitted that the Juvenile
Justice Board under Section 15 of the JJ Act, after having
considered the probation officer's report and the psychologist's
report, had not found the CCL to be tried as an adult.
3.1 Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that there are nine
accused in the matter where there were three CCL and six
adult-accused. Out of that, four major accused and one CCL
have been released on bail. Mr. Jadhav referring to the role
attributed to major accused - Shubham @ Golu Gyaneshwar
Patil submitted that the said accused had injured the deceased
with the sword by giving one blow at the elbow and
considering the role attributed, the bail came to be granted.
3.2 Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that since the CCL has
not been sent to be tried as an adult by giving consideration to
the probation officer's report and the psychologist's report, the
fact would require consideration to examine the role attributed
by the police to the present CCL, where in the charge-sheet,
the role of the CCL is of inflicting a blow at the back of the
deceased with the knife. Mr. Jadhav submitted that
considering the array of the accused, the role of the CCL would
not become very clear and further stated that since last two
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
and a half year, the CCL is in the remand home and
considering the provision submitted that further detention in
the remand home would amount to pre-inquiry conviction.
4. Countering the arguments, learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma
submitted that it is not a simple case of sudden clash. Two
days prior, there was some issue and thus, Shivam along with
the deceased - Vijay had gone to the accused for settlement
talks and it was at that time, the accused persons had
assaulted and also submitted that earlier too, there was a
complaint against the CCL under Section 326 of the IPC and
thus, submitted that the CCL should be allowed to continue in
the remand house for correctional measures.
4.1 APP Mr. Sharma submitted that since the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 has been invoked, the complainant is required to be
heard.
4.2 APP Mr. Sharma stated that one of the witness had
identified the accused before the learned Executive Magistrate,
however, the JJ Board has not found fit to send the present
CCL to be tried as an adult.
4.3 Since contention has been raised that the complainant is
required to be heard, but considering the fact that the JJ Board
has not ordered the CCL to be tried as an adult and when the
complainant was heard in all the bail matters of the co-
accused, this Court at present does not find any necessity to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
hear the complainant since the CCL has been in the remand
house for last two and half years.
5. The deceased as per the charge-sheet appears to be
residing at Maharashtra and had come to Surat to attend a
murder trial. As per the facts of the case, there were about
nine persons who were involved and there appears to be a
CCTV footage.
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 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 maintainable under
Section 439 of Cr.PC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
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
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
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 the Cr.PC is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
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 noticed the role attributing the fact that JJ Board
has not been ordered to be tried as an adult and also the fact
that he has been in the remand house for the last two and half
years and the role attributed and the object of the J.J. Act, the
present revision application succeeds and is allowed.
8. The child in conflict with law is ordered to be released on
bail in connection with C.R. No.11210056241461 of 2024
registered before Dindoli Police Station, Surat on the
applicant's mother executing a personal bond in sum of
Rs.10,000/- with a condition that she would take care of her
child for his good behaviour and his well being.
9. The probation officer's report which has been called by
this Court reflects that the mother has given a written
undertaking assuring the probation officer that the child would
now not get involved in any such offence and she would take
care of the CCL.
10. 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 till completion of
the trial. Moreover, if the Probation Officer considers any
necessity of sending the juvenile for any behavior modification
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1963/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to
the child in conflict with law.
(GITA GOPI,J)
PARMAR KRISH/118
