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 byPage 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 CITATIONR/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 CourtPage 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 CITATIONR/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 regulatePage 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 CITATIONR/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 thePage 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 CITATIONR/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 toPage 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 CITATIONR/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/149Page 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
