IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that juveniles must undergo a thorough psychological assessment to determine their mental capacity before trial decisions are made.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. The present revision application has been filed by the applicant-revisionist under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as ‘J.J. Act’ for short), making a prayer for regular bail to the applicant, who was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged act.

3. The FIR was registered before the Junagadh Taluka Police Station as C.R. No. 11203025240006 of 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 376(3), 376(2) of IPC and sections 5(j)(2), 5(L), 5(N), 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’).

4. The father of the juvenile in conflict with law had moved the principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board of Junagadh by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 251 of 2024, where by an order dated 23.02.2024, the application came to be rejected, thus thereafter moved the Children Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2024. The legality and propriety of the order is under challenge before this Court in the present revision application moved under section 102 of the J.J. Act.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Kumar H. Trivedi for the juvenile in conflict with law submitted that at the time of offence, as alleged, the juvenile was in affectionate relation with the victim, which culminated into physical relation, and the victim and accused are relatives residing in the same vicinity. Mr. Trivedi submitted that after the physical relation, the victim girl who was stated to be 13 years, got impregnated, but the pregnancy was terminated by the order of the concerned Court.

5.1 Advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that Radiologist opinion was recorded for the age of the victim on 10.01.2024, where the Radiology bone age of the victim was shown as 15+-2, hence, the age factor is not definite.

5.2 Advocate Mr. Trivedi further stated that the applicant himself is a juvenile, and stated that the trial court was required to call for the psychological report to examine the mental capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law. Mr. Trivedi stated that the J.J. Board as well as learned appellate Court was required to reflect the opinion of the psychologist in the order to examine the mental capacity of the juvenile. The learned judge has not even referred to any preliminary assessment, if at all of the juvenile.

5.3 Advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that sub-section (1) of section 15 along with the proviso deals with the preliminary assessment with regard to physical and capacity to commit such offence and ability of the juvenile to understand the consequences of the offences, and even to observe the circumstances under which the alleged offence came to be committed and for that purpose the Board is to required to take the assistance of experienced psychologists or social workers or other experts.

5.4 Advocate Mr. Trivedi further stated that under section 19, the power of Children Court, notes about receipt of the preliminary assessment from the Board under section 15, and thereafter the Children Court is required to decide whether there is a need for trial of a child as an adult. The Children Court may also take the assistance of experience psychologist or psycho social worker or other experts to examine the fact of mental and physical capacity of the juvenile in conflict with law to commit such offence and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence.

5.5 Advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that the learned appellate Court has not considered the actual factors to assess the juvenile’s mental status, but has noted of the one criminal antecedent of his father. Mr. Trivedi submitted that as per his instruction only one case has been registered against the father.

6. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State submitted that the age certificate with the Radiological Born assessment is of 15+-2 and, thu