Gujarat High Court
Minor Museb Mehtab Shaikh Through … vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 126 of
2026
==========================================================
MINOR MUSEB MEHTAB SHAIKH THROUGH MEHTAB MOHAMMEDSAFI
SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUSAIB I SHAIKH(10565) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAHARSHI PATEL ADVOCATE WITH MS HETA PANCHAL
ADVOCATE FOR HL PATEL ADVOCATES for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 02/04/2026
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of
Rule on behalf of respective parties.
2. The applicant, 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‘) read with Section 438 and
section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, challenges the order dated
19.12.2025 passed by the City Sessions Court No.2,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.1045 of 2025 and the order
dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.11260 of 2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ahmedabad
in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191003250499 of
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
2025 under Sections 103(1) and 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and Section 135(1) of the
G.P. Act registered before the Khokhra Police Station,
Ahmedabad.
3. The Child in conflict with law (herein after referred to as
‘the CCL’) was aged about 14 years and 9 months at the time
of the alleged act and who came to be arrested on 22.08.2025
in connection with the offence punishable under Section
109(1) and 103(1) of BNS 2023 and section 135(1) of the G.P.
Act.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased child,
on 19.08.2025 at about 12:30 in the morning in front of Jai
Shri Meldi Temple, at the entrance of Gate No.7 of Maniyana
Society, was arguing with his elder father’s son, the Child
Witness (herein after referred to as the C.W.) No.12 and C.W.
No.19, who had previously quarreled with him, and his friend
C.W. No.18. In the meantime, the present CCL, who had
previously had a fight with deceased child, allegedly
harbouring enmity towards him, suddenly went near him and
asked him “Kyun Jhagada Kar Raha Hai” and the deceased
child replied as to “Tu Kaun Hain Kya Kar Lega”. The CCL,
thus got angry and in presence of C.W. Nos.12, 17, 18 and 19
with the knife in his hand gave a single blow on the left side of
the abdomen, which was grievous and as the deceased was
bleeding, in that condition C.W. Nos.12 and 17 entered Gate
No.3 of the Seventh Day School’s compound and towards the
basement on the passage, both side there were place to sit,
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
whereupon all had sat there and after sometime, deceased
child became unconscious and during that period, the
deceased’s mother and elder paternal aunt – Kashiben, Durga
Munda came altogether and took deceased child in the auto
rickshaw of Nanubhai and brought him to Sardar Patel
Hospital, where the injured was treated by Doctor and during
the treatment at about 2:15 hours he died on 20.09.2025.
5. In the charge sheet it is referred that the present CCL
harbouring the previous enmity had injured the deceased on
19.08.2025 at around 12:30 hours at Khokhra, opposite Seven
Days School at the end of Gate No.7 of Maniyana Society, on
the public road, opposite Jai Shri Meldi Temple with the knife
in his hand caused his death with a fatal blow.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Musaib I.Shaikh for the applicant
submitted that considering the age of the present CCL as 14
years and 9 months, he would not be governed by the
provision of Section 15 of the J.J. Act under which the Board
would be called upon to make preliminary assessment into the
heinous offence, since the CCL has not completed the age of
16 years.
6.1 Advocate Mr. Shaikh submitted that the Board under
Section 15 of the J.J. Act is required to preliminary assess the
mental and physical capacity for the commission of such crime
of the CCL above the age of 16 years, who had committed
heinous offence and the ability to understand the
consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
the CCL allegedly committed the offence, and thereupon the
Board would be mandated to pass an order in accordance to
the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the J.J. Act,
thus, it is the submission of Advocate Mr. Shaikh that the
mental and physical capacity of the CCL below the age of 16
would not be a matter for consideration. The circumstances
has to be brought on record by social investigation report and
the past conduct of the child and the Board if it thinks fit
would have all the option to follow the provisions made under
clause (a) to clause (g) of Section 18 of the J.J. Act.
6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh submitted that the bail
application of the present CCL has to be considered in
accordance to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Mr.
Shaikh stated that necessary criteria would be the mental and
physical capacity of the CCL to commit the offence and the
ability to understand the consequences of the offence and
more importantly, Advocate Mr. Shaikh submitted that the
circumstances under which the offence came to be committed
would require special consideration, as a child below the age
of 16 years would not have any mental culpability for
commission of the crime.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh has taken this Court to
the report of the Probation Officer, which as per learned
advocate Mr. Shaikh is a relevant consideration, as provided
under Section 18 of the Act of the Social Investigation Report.
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
6.4 While referring to the cause of the offence, the Probation
Officer has noted that the present CCL and the deceased were
studying in the same school, but in different class of standard
10th. The first meeting of the CCL with the deceased was
about one and half month prior to the incident at the
washroom, where the deceased child had given a tap on the
CCL’s head telling him “Tu School Ma Bahu Vat Kare Chhe
Mari Same Wat Karvu Nahi”, which would mean as if the CCL
was showing his boldness in the school and deceased asked
him not to be bold before him; after such utterance, the
deceased went away. The Probation Officer in his report
recorded that thereafter, whenever the CCL and deceased
child would meet there would be quarrelled for any reasons
and deceased child was harassing the CCL.
6.5 The Probation Officer has further recorded that ten days
prior to the incident in the school lobby, the deceased had
spank the CCL on his head, and when the CCL asked
deceased child not to do so, the deceased told him “Tu Su Kari
Lais”; meaning thereby as to what you would do. So the CCL
answered that he would inform the teacher. Hearing so,
deceased child retorted saying that the teacher would send
him away after punishing, but thereafter he would meet him
outside (Teacher Mane Punish Kari Java Dese, Pachhi Tu
Bahar Malis Ne”). Therefore, the CCL had not informed
anyone about the incident and he got further enraged. After
going home, thereafter the CCL had started keeping a folding
knife with him.
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
6.6 The Probation Officer has also reported that the friend of
CCL, C.W. No.18, studying in standard 9 th and his friend C.W.
No.19 had a quarrel with C.W. No.12, the paternal cousin of
deceased child, which had occurred one week prior to the
incident, which came to the knowledge of deceased child,
therefore on the date of the incident after school, near the
temple of goddess Meldi, a quarrel took place between
deceased, C.W.18 and C.W.19, and during the quarrel the
CCL was called by C.W.18, at that time, the deceased had
forcibly pressed the neck of C.W.19 and the present CCL had
come there, intervened and released him. At that time, the
deceased told the CCL “Tu Kya Kar Lega”. Thus, the CCL got
angry and gave a blow with knife on the stomach of the
deceased and as reported by the Probation Officer, the CCL
ran away from that place and sitting in the van reached his
house.
6.7 With these details of the circumstances under which the
incident had taken place, the Probation Officer had given a
detail report with his own opinion in a positive way about the
emotional, physical and intellectual condition of the CCL. The
family of CCL was found to be economically stable and had a
good repute in the society. The Probation Officer in his
opinion has noted that since the child is below the age of 16
years, he is required to be kept in Observation Home, and he
requires institutional counselling, and that the counselling
process is in progress.
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
7. Learned advocate Mr. Maharshi Patel along with learned
advocate Ms. Heta Panchal for the complainant, the first
informant, relying on the judgment of this Court in case of
Child in Conflict with Law Through Zarinaben W/o.
Jumabhai Detha Vs. State of Gujarat, in Criminal Revision
Application No.1955 of 2024 delivered on 03.07.2025, and the
case of Arjun Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 5 SCC 530,
submitted that it could not be considered as a right of private
defence of the CCL to give a blow to the deceased armed with
a knife, where he was already holding a knife in his hand at
the time of incident.
7.1 Advocate Mr. Patel also relied on the judgment of
Surender Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 7 SCC
40, to submit that the benefit of self-defence would not be
available to the CCL. Relying on the judgment of Om Prakash
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 201,
advocate Mr. Patel, on the conduct in the case of heinous
crimes by the CCL, submitted that it is the duty of the Court
to scrutinize the plea of juvenility with the extreme caution to
ensure that the plea of minority is not employed to escape
punishment. Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the CCL could
not take law in his hands and inflict blow to the extent that
the deceased child would not survive.
8. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the State referring
to the facts of the case and relying on the report of the Police
Inspector, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad City and the judgment
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Juveniles in
Conflict With Law C vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in
2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75412, submitted that the case is progress
before the Juvenile Board; almost about 17 witnesses have
been examined, the inquest panchnama has been admitted
and the important witnesses are yet to be examined.
8.1 As per the police, learned APP Mr. Pandya submitted
that the CCL is suffering from serious anger issues and
placing reliance on the postmortem report submitted that the
injury was penetrating in nature, which had led to death due
to shock and hemorrhage as result of stab injury over the left
side of the abdomen. Learned APP Mr. Pandya was of the view
that a child keeping a knife along with him cannot be
considered as innocent, and his bail application should be
considered in the form of an adult having a criminal mentality
to commit the offence.
8.2 Reliance has also been placed by learned APP on the
statement of one C.W.39, which is recorded on 08.09.2025
regarding the chat after the incident on 19.08.2025 with the
present CCL, where C.W.39 had inquired about causing death
to the deceased child, to impress upon the Court that Chat
itself would suggest the criminal mentality of the present
CCL. Learned APP submitted that during the time of his stay
in the Observation Home, once the CCL had run away, which
is also a circumstance to be considered.
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
9. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. 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.
9.1 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. 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.
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
10. 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
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 orPage 10 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
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
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.”
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
11. Here, in the present case, as per the Probation Officer’s
report, the deceased child was continuously bulling the
present CCL. The conversation, which took place between the
present CCL and the deceased child, as reported by the
Probation Officer, would show that since one month prior to
the incident, the deceased child was putting the CCL under
pressure to the extent that the deceased child had threatened
the CCL to face the consequences, in case of complaining the
teacher. The Probation Officer’s report suggests that since
from the day of such a threat, the CCL was keeping a knife
along with him. On the date of the incident, it was not that
there was a direct quarrel between the CCL and the deceased
child.
11.1 As per the Probation Officer, the deceased child was
physically assaulting C.W.19 by pressing his neck, at that
time, CCL was called by C.W.18 and the CCL had come there
and by intervening released all of them, at that time too, the
deceased had threatened the CCL and in that circumstances,
he gave a knife blow on the stomach.
12. 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,Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
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
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.
12.1 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 mayPage 13 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
have the knowledge of the consequences of his action, but his
ability to control himself in his actions depending on his level
of emotional competence.
13. Section 18 of the J.J. Act, deals that while considering
the satisfaction of the Board on inquiry of the Child
irrespective of the age having committed petty offence, or a
serious offence, or a child below the age of sixteen years
having committed a heinous offence, then despite anything
contrary contained in any other law for the time being in
force, and based on the nature of offence, specific need for
supervision or intervention, and the circumstances as brought
out in the social investigation report, the past conduct of the
child, the Board may, following the appropriate inquiry and
counselling to the child and his parents or the guardian, allow
the child to go home after advice or admonition. The provision
also deals with the participation in group counselling and
similar activities and the child to perform the community
service and other needs for development of the child, and has
noted that the Board can release the child on probation of
good conduct and place him under the care of parent,
guardian or fit person, who would on executing a bond with or
without surety, as the Board may require, for the good
behaviour and child’s well being.
14. Having considered the circumstances under which the
offence has alleged to have been committed and the report of
the Probation Officer of continuous bulling from the side of
the deceased child to the CCL and the fact that the CCL is aPage 14 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/126/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
school going child, and when the trial will take its own time to
conclude, the present CCL is ordered to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No.11191003250499 of 2025 registered
before the Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad, 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.
15. 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.
16. In view of the above, the present application stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
17. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this
order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email
forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/3 (suppl.-III)Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 21:07:19 IST 2026
