ORDER

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

1.1 The present Criminal Revision Application No.490 of 2026 is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No.958 of 2025 dated 27.01.2026. The application is filed by the child-in-conflict-with-law (for short, ‘CCL’) through his uncle.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Arjunsingh Chauhan submitted that the age of the CCL has been noted as 16 years, 11 months and 13 days. Advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that the order of the appellate Court does not reflect any order under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court was required to consider the bail application in accordance to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

2.1 The evidence on record suggests that the deceased had earlier beaten the CCL for a quarrel with regard to a mobile and thereafter, the date of incident refers to many unknown persons who had come in a rickshaw and submitted that mere presence of a knife in the hands of the present CCL with the blood would not itself be made a ground for considering that CCL had inflicted the blows, where other major accused after the incident had told the complainant i.e. the wife of the deceased “apna kaam ho gaya he”. Advocate Mr. Chauhan submitted that the police was required to inquire further regarding the incident and should have found out actually what had transpired during the incident.

3. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma referred to the statement of one – Aman friend of the deceased and owner of pan-shop to submit about the incident having taken place and submitted that the knife was in the hand of the CCL and he was the person who had inflicted the blows.

4. The complaint of Jayvanti Arjunbhai Vadvi - wife of the deceased on 10.08.2025 refers to the quarrel of her husband with the present CCL and another juvenile were with regard to mobile and according to her, because of that enmity, the incident had taken place where CCL as well as the other six adults were in the incident and the four of the persons had confronted the deceased stating “mara mitra Imran ne kem maar marel che” and thereby had assaulted the husband with that intention with the weapon. According to her statement, her husband’s friend – Amansingh was caught hold by them and was given blow with the wooden batton and fisticuffs and her husband was inflicted blows by the CCL, co-accused Razik and another two persons with the knife on the back of the right leg thigh and the back.

5. The incident, thus, alleged also refers that prior to the present alleged incident, the deceased was confronted by another friend of the CCL on the ground that why the deceased had quarreled with the CCL. The incident does not appear to be directly pointing out to the CCL, rather all the adults had gone there to confront the deceased asking him the cause of beating the CCL. The complaint does not specify that it was this CCL, who had inflicted blows, when other adults were along with him, the role of the adult accused does not get specified. The Probation Officer’s report does not reflect anything adverse against the CCL.

6. In the case of Child in Conflict with Law Through Savitaben Vitthalbhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 244005 (passed in CRRA No.901 of 2021 on 28.04.2022)

“17. Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 which deals with the grant of bail to a child expressly contains the nonobstante phrase to be as “.... notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail ...”. This very provision in Section 12 clarifies that provisions of Cr.PC is excluded in the