R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1955 of 2024 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1955 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THRO ZARINABEN W/O JUMABHAI DETHA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR A. U. SAPHIYA(9891) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RISHABH R JAIN(12326) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 03/07/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt waives service of Rule for the respondent – State. 2. The present revision application has been filed by p. 1 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 the Child In Conflict with Law (for short, the “CCL”) through his mother as guardian under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, the “JJ Act”), challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka @ Khambhalia in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2024 whereby, the bail application of the CCL came to be rejected. 3. The short facts leading to filing of the present application are that the offence is registered before the Bhanvad police station, Davbhumi Dwarka vide C.R.No.11185001240725 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 103(2), 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act. The said F.I.R. came to be registered by Nirmalaben Laxmidasbhai Dudhrejiya on 04.08.2024. 3.1. It is alleged in the said F.I.R. that son of the complainant – deceased Yagnikbhai Laxmidas Dudhrejiya p. 2 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 had an affair with one Razmaben, daughter of Ishabhai Abubhai Detha, which was not liked by Ishabhai and his family members as they wanted to perform the Nikah of Razma elsewhere and it was not liked by Razma, therefore, Razma fled away with Yagnikbhai and the father of Razma has lodged the missing report before the Bhanvad police station on 07.01.2023. In the meantime, Razma and Yagnik made a Court marriage and on 24.06.2024, one daughter born and they came to stay at Shedhakhai, which was not liked by the family members of Razma and thereafter, all the accused persons made a conspiracy to commit injury/murder of deceased and thus, the accused persons have helped each other to commit the crime. According to the complaint, with the above facts, the crime has been registered against the accused persons. Further, as per the complaint also, the present CCL was armed with knife and all the accused persons have attacked the deceased and subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and the F.I.R. came to be lodged. Page 3 of 11 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 3.2. It is further alleged that the present CCL, at the relevant time, was minor and his birth date is shown as 08.01.2007. Therefore, at the time of commission of offence, the age of the CCL was 17 years 6 months and 26 days. The CCL preferred an application before the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 12 of the JJ Act, which came to be rejected by the JJ Board. Against that, the appeal has been preferred before the learned Sessions Court, Bhanvad under Section 102 of the JJ Act and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present revision application. 4. Learned advocate Mr.A.U. Saphiya for the applicant submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the role of the present CCL is that he was armed with knife whereas, the deceased had no incised wound and injuries and the deceased had CLW, which could have been caused by hard and blunt substance attributed to the other co-accused persons and not the present CCL. It is submitted that the present CCL has no knowledge of the p. 4 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 alleged offence. The CCL is neither engaged in any physical altercation nor has used any offensive language. It is submitted that as per Section 12 of the JJ Act, granting bail to a juvenile in conflict with the law is a mandatory provision unless specific exceptions apply and bail can only be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile’s release would bring him into association with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. It is submitted that in the present case, none of these conditions are met with and the learned JJ Board and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka @ Khambhalia, in rejecting the bail application of the CCL, failed to provide any specific reason or circumstances to justify such denial. It is submitted that the present CCL has no prior criminal antecedents. It is submitted that, therefore, the present revision application is required to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt has p. 5 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that at the time of incident, the present CCL was 17 years 6 months and 26 days of age and now, he has already attained the majority. It is submitted that the learned JJ Board has already passed an order and the said case has already been transmitted to the Special Children Court by order dated 02.04.2025. It is further submitted that so far as the role attributed to the present CCL is concerned, from the statement of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses, it appears that the present CCL along with the other accused has hatched a criminal conspiracy prior to the date of incident and this has been reflected from the statement of the witness and on the fateful day, the present CCL was armed with knife and along with co- accused persons, who were armed with weapons, had given blow and injuries to the deceased and thus, the incident took place. It is submitted that as per the report of the psychological department, so far as the CCL is concerned, it is found that earlier, the CCL studied upto 8th standard and subsequently, started working after p. 6 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 discontinuing the studies in ceramic industries and as per the report of the Clinical Psychologist, General Hospital, Jam-Khambhalia, the present CCL has a mental capacity to understand the situation and aware about the consequences and seriousness of an act. It is submitted that statement of the wife of the deceased i.e. Razmaben was also recorded, who is the daughter of one of the family members of the accused persons and even the present CCL is also the brother. It is submitted that, therefore, considering the role attributed to the present CCL, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, denying bail to the present CCL, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Rishabh Jain for the respondent no.2 – original complainant submitted that at present also, the wife of the deceased and other family members are given police protection and all the other accused are in judicial custody and if the bail is granted to the CCL, it may endanger the life of the wife of p. 7 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 deceased and other family members. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and does not require any interference and the present application be dismissed. 7. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the records, it is an admitted position that at the time of incident, the age of the present CCL was 17 years 6 months and 26 days and after the arrest, he was produced before the JJ Board. 8. Further, so far as the role attributed to the present CCL is concerned, he was armed with knife, called the co- accused persons and assaulted the deceased with weapon and the deceased succumbed to the injuries suffered by him and, therefore, offence is registered against the accused. From the chargesheet papers, it appears that the eye-witnesses have also stated in the statement before the police that the present CCL was present along p. 8 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 with the co-accused persons. Further, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are required to be considered. In the order, it is specifically recorded that as per the report of the probation officer, that the present CCL has dropped out the school and in that event, there are more possibilities to bring the juvenile into association with the criminals. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka @ Khambhalia, denying the bail, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 9. Further, from the report of the probation officer, which is placed on record before this Court, it appears that the present CCL is the resident of Shedhakhai and his cousin sister has married with the deceased by fleeing away from family and they were residing in the same village and the father of the present CCL has the past antecedents and considering the role attributed to the present CCL and also considering the probation officer’s p. 9 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 report and the psychologist department, there is reasonable belief that if the present CCL is released on bail, it would bring him into association with known criminals or expose the CCL to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice. Further, the present CCL has now attained majority and the case has already been transmitted to the Special Children Court. 10. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Court are just and proper and further, the present case falls under the proviso of Section 12 of the JJ Act. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka @ Khambhalia and the present revision application is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. 11. The order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Devbhumi Dwarka @ Khambhalia in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2024 is p. 10 R/CR.RA/1955/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 hereby confirmed. 12. In view of dismissal of the present revision application, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2025 would not survive and the same is dismissed accordingly. (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh p. 11 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.