JJB, Children's Court Must Give Reasons For Denying Bail: Gujarat High Court Directs Release Of Teenager Booked In Murder Case

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a child-in-conflict with law booked along with other CCLs for murder of another minor boy, after noting that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court/children's court did not give reasons for rejecting the bail plea.

It further noted that both the JJB and the appellate court had dealt with the CCL's bail plea not as one under section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act but as one under CrPC.

Justice Gita Gopi in her order said:

"The JJB as well as the learned Appellate Court was required to give the reasons explaining as to how the release of the CCL would be detrimental to the ends of justice. Even without calling for the Report of the Probation Officer and the Report of the Clinical Psychologist, the bail application of the present CCL, aged about 14 years has been dealt with. Both the Courts, i.e. learned JJB as well as the learned Appellate Court has dealt with the application for bail of the present CCL as if they were dealing with of a heinous crime committed by an adult".

The court further noted that the Probation Officer's Report did not explicitly state anything about the incident and the JJB's order not reflect that it had perused the social investigation report.

"The order rejecting the application under Section 12 of the JJ Act by the Board does not deal explicitly on the facts of the case. The learned Magistrate, JJB has not considered the provision of Section 12 of the JJ Act and appears to have dealt with the case as under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code'). Even the learned Additional District Judge has not referred to any report of the Probation Officer nor has called for the clinical psychologist report, which is before this court referring to the present CCL aged about 14 years to have average intelligence. Further, the order of the appellate court also does not refer to the reasons for rejecting the Appeal under Section 101 of the JJ Act"

Referring to Child in Conflict with law v. State of Gujarat (2025), the High Court said that it is requested to the JJBs and the Children's Court to "be sensitive while they are dealing with the bail application of CCL's below the age of 16 even in heinous crimes".

"Random rejection of the bail application is not warranted by the President of JJB as well the Appellate Court since the bail application have to be dealt with under Section 12 of the JJ Act and not in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C., i.e. under Sections 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, it is clear that the deceased was continuously bullying the CCL's. There is no eye witness to the incident, the incident had taken place during the day. The mental capability and mental state of the CCL's understanding the consequences of their act, have not been addressed by the JJB as well as the Children's Court, of a child aged about 14 years," the court added.

The petitioner, a child-in-conflict with law (CCL) aged about 13 years, had challenged an order dated 19.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Children's Court Surat as well as order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in connection with an FIR under BNS Sections 103(1)(murder), 61(2)(A)(Criminal conspiracy) and 52(Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done).

The petitioner's counsel argued that there are 5 CCL's in the matter, where as the deceased was 16 years old at time of the incident. Against the petitioner the allegation was that he had given 3 knife blows to the deceased. It was submitted that there were about 23 injuries recorded which are stab wounds, incise wounds, abrasions etc.

The counsel said that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and body of the deceased was found in an open ground. It was submitted that as per the police, the deceased was abusing the CCL's in an indecent manner and was calling the CCLs in a very abusive vulgar language.

State submitted that the petitioner should be continued to be kept in the Observation Home so that his behaviour could be corrected there.

Meanwhile the counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail plea submitted, that the petitioner had taken the life of the deceased brutally on account of the mental culpability of all the CCLs and more specifically, the petitioner. It was further submitted that all the CCL's had pre-planned the murder and had called the deceased under a false pretext. With a knife, they had given fatal blows and the petitioner had allegedly given blows on the vital parts of the body, which resulted in the death of the deceased.

The court in its order noted that it was the police's case that on 24.04.2025 all the CCL's had gathered and discussed about the abusive conduct of the deceased, his addressing them with vulgar words, harassing them and therefore they had decided to do away with him. As per the police the petitioner had brought a knife from his house which he had given to the CCL No.2 who had given it to CCL No.4, who had kept it in his house.

It was alleged that the CCLs had informed the deceased that they were going to eat Biryani. When they reached the place after jumping a wall the CCLs told the deceased that they were playing prank, the deceased got angry and started abusing them, it was alleged. As the deceased moved away towards the wall and attempted to jump it, petitioner allegedly took the knife and gave him three blows with the knife.

"It is alleged that there were incessant knife blows given on the deceased and thereafter, CCL No.2 had taken the knife and had given blows to the deceased on the back, on the stomach and hands. The deceased was profusely bleeding and all the CCL's left the scene and ran away. The incident had taken place in the afternoon and the dead body was found on the next day morning. The interim conduct of the CCL has not been brought on record. The police has stated that the CCTV image has captured that all the six had gone together while only five had returned back. The panchnama of the CCTV footage has not been drawn. The fact as could be noted by the police is that the deceased was continuously harassing the CCL's, bullying them and was virtually abusing them with indecent addresses. The deceased was also taunting the CCL's about the conduct of the mother of one of the CCL's. It appears that all the CCL's could not inform about the conduct of the deceased to any of the adults at home. Harassed by the attitude and behaviour of the deceased they decided to take such steps," the order notes.

The court granted bail to the petitioner CCL upon his father executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety of like amount.

The court further directed the Probation Officer to monitor the conduct of the CCL and shall quarterly submit the report before the JJB till completion of the trial. If the Probation Officer considers any necessity of sending the child for any behavior modification then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to the CCL . The court also said that the CCL's father will "ensure that the juvenile will not fall into bad company".

The plea was allowed.

Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1400 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order