Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile In POCSO Case After 'Out Of Court Settlement' With Complainant

The Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to a juvenile in conflict with law who was accused of rape under POCSO Act, after noting that the juvenile and the complainant had arrived at an
"out of Court settlement" where she had expressed no objection to his release. 

Justice P.M. Raval while considering the general principles to be followed in administration under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act and noting the principle of presumption of innocence observed:

“In aforesaid view of the matter, considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement as well as considering the Report of the Probation Officer and physical and mental condition as well as the family condition of the juvenile in conflict with law, as narrated therein, General Principles as laid down in the JJ Act, referred to herein above, as well as the fact that now Charge-sheet in the case is filed and last but not the least, as there is nothing on record to show that proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act is applicable on the case on hand, the Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the present juvenile applicant.”

For context, proviso to Section 12(1) JJ Act states that a juvenile shall not be released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice. 

The plea filed by the minor accused's father sought bail in connection with an FIR registered under BNS Sections 63(A) (Punishment for aggravated sexual assault), 64(1)(2)(i)(m) (Punishment for rape under aggravated circumstances), 78(1)(i) (Stalking), and other related provisions of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(A) (Penetrative sexual assault), 5(L) (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a person in a position of control), 12 (Sexual harassment of a child), 16 (Abetment of offence) and provisions of POCSO Act.

The plea was filed after the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the first Appellate Court rejected the juvenile's bail application. 

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the case arose out of a love affair between two juveniles and the parties had arrived at an out of Court settlement wherein the original complainant had no objection to bail. Emphasizing that the applicant is a minor, counsel submitted that Section 12 of JJ Act mandates release of a juvenile on bail and the exceptions carved out under the provision do not apply in the present facts and circumstances. Therefore, the Sessions Court failed to consider the provision and rejected the appeal.

The counsel then argued that the investigation was complete, a chargesheet had been filed, and there was no possibility of tampering with evidence. Pointing out to the report of the Probation Officer, the counsel submitted that the juvenile's conduct appeared to be good. The counsel lastly argued the juvenile is entitled to bail and may be denied release only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that his release would associate him with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeats the ends of justice. The counsel then urged the Court to release him on bail.

The counsel for the original complainant also submitted an affidavit stating the parties had arrived at an out of Court settlement and that the complainant had no objections to the juvenile being released on bail.

The APP argued that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Court had declined bail considering the facts, and the role of the juvenile in conflict with law, and the gravity of the offence, leaving it to the Court to pass appropriate orders.

After considering the facts of the case, arguments of the counsels, report of the Probation Officer and affidavit placed on record by the complainant, the court while referring to Supreme Court's order in Juvenile in Conflict with Law v. State of Rajasthan (2024), allowed the bail plea and directed:

“The juvenile applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the above-referred FIR on surety of his father with bail bond of Rs.5,000/-”

The Court directed the Probation Officer to monitor the conduct of the juvenile in conflict with law and to submit a report quarterly before the Appellate Court till the completion of the trial and to arrange behaviour modification, necessary therapy or psychiatric support for the juvenile in conflict with law.

Case Title: X vs State of Gujarat

Case Number: Criminal Revision Application (For Regular Bail) No. 2316 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order