Gujarat High Court
Ankit Santosh Prasad (Juvenile) Thro … vs State Of Gujarat on 30 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1549
of 2025
==========================================================
ANKIT SANTOSH PRASAD (JUVENILE) THRO SANTOSHKUMAR
VISHESHVAR RAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 30/03/2026
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent – State.
2. The revision application 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 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1110 of 2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Surat and
order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.220 of
2025 by the Additional Sessons Judge, Surat in connection
with FIR being C.R. No.11214046241186/2024 under Sections
103(1), 103(3), 115(2), 189(2), 190, 191(2) and 126(2) of
B.N.S.S. and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act before the Palsana
Police Station.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
3. The complaint records that the complainant and his
brother-in-law Rohit Chhatrapal Lodhi had gone to the garage
of the present Child in Conflict with Law (herein after referred
to as the ‘CCL’ for short), as there were some sound in the
bike and for repairing of the fault the present CCL had taken
the charge of Rs.20/- from the complainant, but soon
thereafter, again they found that the bike was still exerting
noise and therefore, the brother-in-law of the complainant had
inquired about the noise and it is alleged that CCL got excited
and started quarrel with Rohit and complainant.
3.1 It is the case of the complainant that thereafter they left
the place and again when brother-in-law Rohit and his brother
Shravan had gone to the garage of the CCL, it is alleged that
the CCL had attacked Rohit, but as his brother intervened,
Shravan sustained injury on his chest, which is alleged to have
been given by one instrument named as ‘Pechu’ (screw
driver), which is used in the garage.
3.2 It is further case of the complainant that thereafter
complainant and Rohit had gone to the market on the
motorcycle for purchasing of oninos and when they were
passing from the corner of lane of the society on the
motorcycle, it is alleged that the present CCL along with three
others and one unknown person, who often comes to the
garage of the present CCL, all of them had stopped them on
the road, and seeing them the complainant and Rohit were
frightened and had tried to take U-turn with the motorcycle,
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
but because of heavy rain, motorcycle got slipped and as a
result the complainant and Rohit both fell down on the
ground. It is further alleged that thereafter the present CCL
along with others had assaulted and had given kick and fist
blows, and suddenly the CCL gave a blow with the knife to
Rohit at his back, who fell down and was bleeding. The police
was informed by some resident of the society.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Kishan H.Daiya submitted that the
cause of quarrel, if at all has to be taken into consideration
then it was the repair of the vehicle for which charge of
Rs.20/- was recovered by the CCL. Mr. Daiya submitted that
there was no cause for Rohit and Sharavan to again go to his
garage for invoking quarrel. Mr. Daiya submitted that the role
of the complainant and Sharavan has not become clear as to
what force both of them had used against CCL, who was all
alone at that time, and the weapon which is alleged, with
which Shravan got injured, was because Sharvan has
intervened was available in the garage; the cause and effect of
the incident has not been brought on record, where the CCL
was confronted by two major persons, the role of two major
persons at that place of incident does not become clear in the
compliant, and whether CCL was defending his ownself
against two majors, would only be the reason for inflicting
injury.
4.1 Advocate Mr. Daiya further stated that another incident
appears to have been self invited, where the cause of going to
the market for purchasing onions also becomes hard to
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
believe. Mr. Daiya stated that it was not the case that the CCL
and others, wherein one of them was another CCL, would
have waited for them to come and then cause the injury.
4.2 Advocate Mr. Daiya submitted that from where the knife
had come in the hand of the present CCL also does not
become clear, when both the complainant and Rohit had fallen
in the puddle because their motorcycle got slipped. Mr. Daiya
stated that the injury could have been sustained by some
other means, and submitted that again it would become a case
of self-defence, wherein inspite of allegation of earlier quarrel,
which had alleged to have occurred with Rohit and Shravan,
there was no reason for Rohit and the complainant again to
pass by the garage of the CCL.
5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted
that the temprament of the CCL is also required to be
considered, where he was armed with screw driver and knife
at both the incidents and had injured Rohit. Learned APP Mr.
Pandya stated that the incident has been witnessed by one
Rasuben Shimabhai Kalabhai Sihaliya and thus, submitted
that the CCL appears to have criminal mentality and if he is
released on bail, he may continue with such activity and may
also fall in the Company of other criminals and thus, urged to
reject the application. Learned APP has placed on record
report of Police Inspector Palsana Police Station
6. The complaint does not clarify that in spite of repair
work done of the motorcycle why again Rohit and Shravan
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
had to go back to pick up quarrel with the CCL. At that time,
as per the complaint, CCL was all alone and the injury stated
to have caused by the screw driver. There is no complaint
filed of that incident to the police.
6.1 Again on that very same day, the complainant and Rohit
were passing by the garage of the CCL stating that they were
heading towards market and when seeing four of them
together, the rest of three, who were often frequenting the
garage of the CCL, the complainant and Rohit got frightened
and they tried to turn their motorcycle, but because of the
rain they fell down in the puddle, and thereafter it is alleged
that the CCL and others four had given kick and fist blows and
the present CCL gave a knife blow on the back of Rohit.
7. Taking into consideration the whole chain of events, as
alleged and when the CCL is a working member of the family,
and when the specific cause does not come on record, where
after the repair of the vehicle Rohit and his injured brother
Shravan had gone there and thereafter again the complainant
and Rohit passed near the garage of the CCL, the specific role
of the complainant and the person, who were accompanying
on both the time of alleged incidet, does not become clear,
while the allegation is attributed to the CCL and the others.
8. 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)
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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 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 thePage 6 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
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.”
9. Having considered the role and the object of the J.J. Act,
the present application succeeds and is allowed. The child in
conflict with law is ordered to be released on bail in
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1549/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
connection with C.R. No.11214046241186/2024 registered
before Palsana Police Station, Surat on the applicant’s father
executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with a
condition that he would take care of his child for his good
behaviour and his well being.
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/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.
Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/1
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:37:27 IST 2026