Gujarat High Court
Yogeshbhai S/O Pravinbhai @ Premjibhai … vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 648 of
2025
==========================================================
YOGESHBHAI S/O PRAVINBHAI @ PREMJIBHAI JIVANBHAI MAKWANA
THROUGH PRAVINBHAI JIVANBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAY J JANI(9303) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HD CHUDASAMA(234) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/04/2026
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
13.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Limbdi, Surendranagar in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2024 and
the order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Juvenile Criminal Case
No.27 of 2024 by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Surendranagar in connection with FIR being C.R.
No.11211031240003 of 2024 under Sections 302, 323, 504,
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
506(2), 447 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135
of the G.P. Act registered before the Limbdi Police Station.
2.1 In the FIR accused No.1 is the father himself, accused
No.2 is the mother and accused No.3 is grandfather of the
present CCL.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Jay J.Jani submitted that the
appellate Court was required to analyse the facts of the case
and the original incident, where it was the case that whole of
the family have been made accused in the matter, where the
quarrel was between the distant cousin i.e. the mother of the
complainant and the father of the CCL. Advocate Mr. Jani
stated that the accused were alleged to have verbally abused
the mother of the complainant when the father of the
complainant was admitted in the Civil Hospital for cancer
treatment.
3.1 Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that the allegation is of the
morning and then in the afternoon; the real maternal uncle’s
son Ankit along with Nareshbhai Makwana and the younger
brother of the complainant Vikash had come, at that time, the
complainant herself had asked the accused to restrain
themselves from using unnecessary address in
communication. Advocate Mr. Jani stated that at that time, the
father of the CCL had quarreled with the younger brother of
the complainant, and as per the complainant, the father of the
CCL stated by expressing his enrage that he would do away
with the life of the brother and had given fisticuffs, at that
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
time, the complainant, brother Vikas and maternal uncle’s son
Ankit had intervened to release them and it is stated that
hearing the outcry, the aunt Chandrikaben i.e. the mother of
the CCL and grandfather of the CCL along with CCL had come
to their house. Mr. Jani submitted that as per the complaint,
in the hands of Chandrikaben there was wooden baton, in the
hands of Jivabhai there was wooden raft of the tree, and with
the log Chandrikaben had given blow on knee of the left leg of
the maternal uncle’s son Ankit and all the four assaulted the
younger brother Jigar, who sustained injury below the right
eye and on the back because of the fisticuffs.
3.2 As per advocate Mr. Jani, the complainant stated that all
the four had exhorted saying that today they were to kill
children and after the assault they uttered filthy abuses and
during this quarrel it is stated that the present CCL went to
his house and brought metal scissor and in that excitement,
had given a blow on the left side of neck of the complainant’s
brother Vikash and because of the injury and the bleeding, he
fell down. Advocate Mr. Jani stated that as per the compliant,
all the four thereupon climbed onto the chest of the brother
and to the maternal uncle’s son Ankit who had intervened, the
CCL had also given injury on the right hand elbow and the
upper arms, who also started bleeding; and thereafter the
neighbours had come to intervene and had released them. Mr.
Jani submitted that the injured were taken to the hospital and
Vikash during the treatment died in U.N. Mehta Hospital.
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Jani submitted that all the three
i.e. father, mother and the grandfather had been released on
default bail. Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that it is not the
case that parents were not present there, what had actually
occurred for the CCL to intervene and come with scissor from
his house, does not become clear. The CCL in the excitement
would have not known about the consequences of his own act.
3.4 Advocate Mr. Jani has referred to the provisions of
section 18 of the J.J. Act, to submit that after the amendment
by insertion in the provision for the application to be disposed
of after the preliminary assessment of the child aged above 16
years who had committed heinous offence, the Board is
required to consider the circumstances, as has been brought
out in social investigation report and the past conduct of the
child. Advocate Mr. Jani submitted that CCL is residing in a
family, there is no criminal antecedent of the CCL, therefore,
both the Court i.e. J.J.B. as well as the Children Court, were
required to consider the bail, in the background of the actual
occurrence.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Jani has also placed reliance on
the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016. Mr. Jani submits that
Rule 11(1) makes it incumbent on the Board after preliminary
assessment under section 15 of the J.J. Act in cases of heinous
offence to dispose the matter and the Board while passing the
dispositional orders has to follow the provision under section
18 of the J.J. Act.
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
4. Countering the arguments, learned APP Mr. Niraj
Sharma for the State has referred to the psychiatrist report,
where it is noted from the history and clinical examination
that CCL has impulsive behaviour, however the psychiatrist
had recommended for examination of all documents and had
observed that the reliable history given, is required for
confirmation of diagnosis. Learned APP stated that the
psychiatrist noted that currently there was no major active
situation found, which can impact person’s ability to commit
or understand the consequences of crime, however the
psychiatrist had made a recommendation for psychological
examination.
4.1 Learned APP Mr. Sharma has also referred to the
clinical psychologist report, to submit that it is very
categorically noted that the CCL had the understanding about
the crime and the consequences of the crime, and the clinical
psychological report has observed the level of understanding
between 90-110. Learned APP has also referred to the
Probation Officer’s report and submitted that the Board has
taken into consideration the Probation Officer’s report,
psychiatric report as well as the clinical psychological report
to pass an order under section 15 of the J.J. Act.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, reference of section 18(3) of the J.J. Act would
become relevant, which has remained intact even after the
insertion in the section for disposal of the preliminary
assessment under under section 15 of the J.J. Act for the child
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
above the age of 16 years, who is alleged to have committed
the heinous offence. Section 18(3) is reproduced herein
under:
“18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict
with law –
(1) …
(2) …
(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under
section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of
the said child as an adult, then the Board may order
transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court
having jurisdiction to try such offences.”
5.1 After the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the
J.J. Act, if the Board considers that there is a need for trial of
the said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer
of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having
jurisdiction to try such offences.
5.2 Section 19 of the J.J. Act, gives power to the Children’s
Court to again reassess the preliminary assessment report
received from the Board and after considering the need for
trial of the child as an adult, as per the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure, may pass an appropriate order after the
trial subject to the provisions of sections 19 and 21,
considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair
trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere.
6. Here, the CCL would be facing trial before the
Children’s Court and the trial would be as per the adult. In
case of heinous offences, provisions under section 21 of the
J.J. Act, would be made applicable, where the act has provided
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
that no order would be passed against the CCL sentencing
him to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of
release for the offence invoked under IPC.
7. The Probation Officer’s report is with the fact that when
the officer had visited the house; the parents were not
available and after inquiring from the neighbours, it had come
to the knowledge of the officer that the child was suffering
from some mental ailment and he was also on some
medication. The Probation Officer was of the opinion that if
such mentally ill child would be released on bail, then it would
not be safe for the public and CCL would be a danger for the
society.
8. It has been brought on record that thereafter an order
was passed for fresh report of the Probation Officer by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court and the Probation Officer on
visiting the present CCL has noted that there was some
positive change in the behaviour and the nature of the CCL,
however, had expressed the apprehension that if again he is
sent in the same atmosphere and in the same situation, then
there would be all possibility of the CCL getting infuriated,
which would affect his future.
9. The facts of the matter, as gets disclosed shows that
originally the present CCL was not involved in the incident,
which had been alleged to have occurred in the afternoon. It
was only when the quarrel took place between the
complainant’s side, as referred herein above, and the father of
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
the CCL, hearing the outcry, the mother and grandfather with
the CCL had rushed to the place. It is alleged that the mother
and grandfather had wooden baton and wooden raft of the
tree in their hands, and when the quarrel continued, at that
time, the CCL rushed to his house and picked up the metal
scissor, which is allegedly said to be used for inflicting the
blow on the neck.
10. 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.
10.1 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.
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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.
11. 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 anPage 9 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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 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 SectionPage 10 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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.”
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,
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 hisPage 11 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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 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.
13. The report of the Probation Officer gets reflected from
the statements of the neighbours that the CCL was suffering
from mental ailment and was also put on medication. If that
has to be kept in mind, then what triggered the CCL to rush to
his house and to come back with metal scissor also would be a
relevant consideration to be examined, whether at that
relevant time the CCL had any knowledge or understanding
about the consequences of his act required due consideration.
It appears that the fact of mental ailment of CCL had not beenPage 12 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
brought to the knowledge of the clinical psychologist.
13.1 It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Jani that
now the family is not residing in the same vicinity, they have
shifted to some other place.
14. Having considered the report of the Probation Officer,
which has been called for by the order of the co-ordinate
bench, which reflects that at the relevant time the CCL was
under mental ailment and the parents had put him under
medication and having considered the circumstances of the
matter, and as whole of the family were in jail because of the
personal quarrel which took place between two distant
relatives staying in the neighbourhood and when the trial will
take its own time to 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.11211031240003 of 2024 registered before the Limbdi
Police Station 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 toPage 13 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/648/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
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/38Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 22 00:18:35 IST 2026