Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Minor Museb Mehtab Shaikh Through Mehtab Mohammedsafi Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application (For Regular Bail) No. 126 of 2026
Decided On : 02-04-2026

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Musaib I Shaikh(10565)
For the Respondent:Mr Maharshi Patel Advocate With Ms Heta Panchal Advocate For Hl Patel Advocates, Mr Bhargav Pandya APP

Granting bail to a juvenile is a mandatory rule, while refusal is an exception. The gravity of the offence or the child's age are not valid grounds for denial; instead, courts must prioritize the child's reform, rehabilitation, and protection within the framework of specialized juvenile justice legislation.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 12, 15, and 18 - Grant of bail to child in conflict with law - Bail is a rule and refusal is an exception - Serious nature of offence or age of juvenile are not relevant considerations for denial of bail - Judicial intervention for bail under specialized juvenile legislation is independent of provisions contained in standard criminal procedural codes. (Paras 12, 14, 15)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Revisional power of Court - Courts exercising revisional jurisdiction utilize powers of the Board to ensure compliance with the reformative intent of the law - Mandate for institutional counseling and behavioral therapy monitoring by probation officers - Primary focus on reform and social reintegration of the child. (Paras 16, 21)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a minor, challenged the rejection of bail by lower judicial authorities in connection with charges involving a death resulting from a physical altercation. The probation report documented a pattern of repeated harassment and bullying of the applicant by the deceased minor, which eventually led to the incident. The applicant sought release pending the conclusion of the trial.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the grant of bail to a juvenile is mandatory under the statute unless the release is likely to expose the child to danger, place the child in association with known criminals, or defeat the ends of justice. The court prioritized the reformatory and rehabilitative objectives of the legislation, holding that the seriousness of the alleged offence and the age of the child do not constitute valid grounds for denial of bail.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant, despite the gravity of the offence, was entitled to bail under the specialized statutory provisions governing juveniles, and whether the emotional and cognitive maturity of a minor necessitates an approach focused on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory framework explicitly mandates that bail be granted to a minor as a rule, notwithstanding any other prevailing legal provisions, provided specified restrictive conditions are absent. Courts must prioritize the best interests of the child, acknowledging that impulsive tendencies and lack of cognitive maturation in adolescents significantly mitigate criminal culpability, necessitating intervention through counseling and probation rather than punitive detention.

Result: The revision application was allowed and the rule was made absolute with a mandate for ongoing monitoring of the minor's conduct by the probation officer.

ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1.RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective parties.

2. The applicant, by way of the present revision application filed through his father, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as ‘the J.J. Act’) read with Section 438 and section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, challenges the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the City Sessions Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.1045 of 2025 and the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.11260 of 2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ahmedabad in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11191003250499 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) and 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and Section 135(1) of the G.P. Act registered before the Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad.

3. The Child in conflict with law (herein after referred to as ‘the CCL’) was aged about 14 years and 9 months at the time of the alleged act and who came to be arrested on 22.08.2025 in connection with the offence punishable under Section 109(1) and 103(1) of BNS 2023 and section 135(1) of the G.P. Act.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased child, on 19.08.2025 at about 12:30 in the morning in front of Jai Shri Meldi Temple, at the entrance of Gate No.7 of Maniyana Society, was arguing with his elder father’s son, the Child Witness (herein after referred to as the C.W.) No.12 and C.W. No.19, who had previously quarreled with him, and his friend C.W. No.18. In the meantime, the present CCL, who had previously had a fight with deceased child, allegedly harbouring enmity towards him, suddenly went near him and asked him “Kyun Jhagada Kar Raha Hai” and the deceased child replied as to “Tu Kaun Hain Kya Kar Lega”. The CCL, thus got angry and in presence of C.W. Nos.12, 17, 18 and 19 with the knife in his hand gave a single blow on the left side of the abdomen, which was grievous and as the deceased was bleeding, in that condition C.W. Nos.12 and 17 entered Gate No.3 of the Seventh Day School’s compound and towards the basement on the passage, both side there were place to sit, whereupon all had sat there and after sometime, deceased child became unconscious and during that period, the deceased’s mother and elder paternal aunt – Kashiben, Durga Munda came altogether and took deceased child in the auto rickshaw of Nanubhai and brought him to Sardar Patel Hospital, where the injured was treated by Doctor and during the treatment at about 2:15 hours he died on 20.09.2025.

5. In the charge sheet it is referred that the present CCL harbouring the previous enmity had injured the deceased on 19.08.2025 at around 12:30 hours at Khokhra, opposite Seven Days School at the end of Gate No.7 of Maniyana Society, on the public road, opposite Jai Shri Meldi Temple with the knife in his hand caused his death with a fatal blow.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Musaib I.Shaikh for the applicant submitted that considering the age of the present CCL as 14 years and 9 months, he would not be governed by the provision of Section 15 of the J.J. Act under which the Board would be called upon to make preliminary assessment into the heinous offence, since the CCL has not completed the age of 16 years.

6.1 Advocate Mr. Shaikh submitted that the Board under Section 15 of the J.J. Act is required to preliminary assess the mental and physical capacity for the commission of such crime of the CCL above the age of 16 years, who had committed heinous offence and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which the CCL allegedly committed the offence, and thereupon the Board would be mandated to pass an order in accordance to the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the J.J. Act, thus, it is the submission of Advocate Mr. Shaikh that the mental and physical capacity of the CCL below the age of 16 would not be a matter for consideration. The circumstances has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADGITA GOPI, J.Minor Museb Mehtab Shaikh Through Mehtab Mohammedsafi Shaikh - AppellantVersusState Of Gujarat & Anr. - RespondentCriminal Revision Application (For Regular Bail) No. 126 of 2026Decided On : 02-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Minor Museb Mehtab Shaikh Through Mehtab Mohammedsafi Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application (For Regular Bail) No. 126 of 2026
Decided On : 02-04-2026