A second revision for bail under the Juvenile Justice Act is not maintainable against the same order without fresh grounds or substantial changes in circumstances.

C A V Order

This is the second revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015 (in short “the Act 2015) on behalf of the child in conflict with law ‘XYZ’ against the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 passed by this Court in Cr. Rev. No 335 of 2024 for grant of bail.

2. The earlier revision application filed by the applicant was rejected on merits. The revisionist/juvenile-in-conflict with law by way of this second revision has prayed for the following relief :

“It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure A-1) and grant the applicant bail, in the interest of justice.”

3. As per office note, on 6.07.2024, the Registry has pointed out the default with regard to maintainability of the revision which is as follows:

“The present applicant/revisioner has challenged the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in Cr.Rev. No. 335/2024 vide order dated19.06.2024 ”

The default as pointed out by the office has not been cured by the applicant/revisioner.

4. Learned counsel for the revisioner/Juvenile-in-conflict with law has filed this second revision for grant of bail and submits that the charges have been framed and the dismissal of the earlier revision itself would amount to change in circumstances and and that there is no bar in entertaining the subsequent revision against the same order rejecting the bail application though the nomenclature mentioned is a revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act. He submits that without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the evidence on record, the High Court had dismissed the criminal revision petition.

5. Opposing the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the revisioner/juvenile-in-conflict with law, it is submitted by the learned State counsel that the second revision is not maintainable as also pointed out by the Registry. He submits that earlier the revision for grant of bail was rejected by this Court on merits and thereafter there is no change in circumstances and even though it would not be maintainable as the present revision has been filed against the same order passed by this Court which is not maintainable. The review of the order cannot be a right unless it is expressed provided in any statute and once the revisional jurisdiction has been exercised by this Court under the Act, the court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain the same. He further submits that the present revision petition which is the second bail application has been filed without any fresh and new ground. It is argued that all the grounds as taken were available at the time of hearing of the first bail application. It is submitted that there is no subsequent development after rejection of the first bail application which would entitle the applicant to file a second bail application. He has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No.1797 of 2022 dated 12.04.2023 wherein it has been held in para 31 as under:

“31. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that once the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the POA Act is dismissed by this Court on merits, the subsequent appeal under any change of circumstances would not be maintainable for two reasons firstly, that by the statutory scheme of appeal enacted under Section14 A, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C stands impliedly excluded as the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has now only been vested to the Special Court constituted under Section1 4A of the POA Act and this Court is only empowered to hear appeal under Section 14A(2) of the POA Act against refusal or grant of bail by the Special Court under the POA Act and secondly that entertaining the subsequent appeal under change of circumstances directly would amount to review of its earlier order which is expressly provided by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. as the Co