IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 2163 of 2025 =================================================

VISHAL MANSUKHBHAI SASAKIYA THRO NARESHBHAI VITHTHALBHAI SASAKIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

=================================================

Appearance:

MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 18/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Though served, none appears for the respondent No. 2 –

original complainant.

2. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for the respondent – State. Considering the issue involved in the matter, the same is taken up for final disposal today.

3. This application has been filed by the juvenile in conflict with law through his uncle as a guardian under Sections 12 and 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) challenging the order dated 27.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2025 by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, rejecting appeal and confirming the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the President, Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board), Surendranagar in Juvenile Criminal Case No. 59 of 2025 whereby, application of applicant for bail, came to be rejected.

4. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that an FIR being C.R. No. 11211009250598 of 2025 was lodged with Chotila Police Station, District: Surendranagar against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(i) and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(a), 4, 5(j), 2 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and was arrested on 12.08.2025. The applicant – juvenile in conflict with law had preferred the aforesaid application for regular bail before the JJ Board, which came to be rejected against which, appeal also came to be rejected, as aforesaid and hence, this revision.

5. Heard, learned advocate for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

5.1 At the outset, the learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a minor and therefore, by virtue of Section 12 of the JJ Act, it would be mandatory to enlarge the applicant on bail. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate and interpret the provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act in the its true and proper perspective. It is submitted that according to Section 12 of the JJ Act, a Child (as defined under section 2(12) of the JJ Act), alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence and if he is detained by the police or if he is brought before a Board, such a person shall be released on bail. It is submitted that though exceptions carved out in the section does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the said aspect and rejected the appeal of the juvenile in conflict with law.

5.2 Without admitting anything against the applicant, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that it is a case of love affair and hence, the applicant has not committed any overt act so far as the accusation is concerned. He further submitted that even otherwise, investigation in the crime in question is over and Charge- sheet is also filed and hence, there is no question of any tampering or hampering with the evidence.

5.3 The learned advocate for the applicant further submits that even as per the Social Investigation Report (SIR) of the Probation Officer, nothing so adverse is forthcoming on record against the juvenile applicant and his conduct also appears to be good.

5.4 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that Section 12 of the JJ Act mandates despite anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code or under any law fo