Bail for a child in conflict with law is governed exclusively by the specialized juvenile legislation’s non-obstante provisions, excluding the general criminal code; bail is the mandatory norm, with denial serving as a rare exception requiring documented, specific reasons.

ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

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

2) The applicant herein the child in conflict with law (CCL) aged about 17 years and 30 days, through his grandmother, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to in short as the ‘JJ Act’) has made a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Surendranagar, in Criminal Appeal No.234 of 2025 in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R. No.11211035240330 of 2024 registered with Muli Police Station, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(J)(K)(N) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(A), 4, 5(l), 5(j)(2), 6, 9 (L) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’), and to release CCL on regular bail.

3) The allegations are to the effect that the victim girl, the daughter of the complainant and is aged 14 years 5 months and 9 days was kidnapped by the CCL from the legal guardianship of her parents under the pretext of marrying her, who had taken her to various places, stayed together with the victim girl, established physical relations with her; the girl had become pregnant carrying pregnancy for a period of 5 months.

4) This Court had called for the DNA Report since the victim had undergone medical termination of pregnancy. The DNA Report matches and declares the CCL to be the biological father.

5) Learned advocate for the CCL Mr. Piyush Trivedi submitted that the Report of the Probation Officer would require a special consideration since the CCL had reported to the Probation Officer that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given in the presence of the members of the community for the engagement and thereafter, they both were visiting each other’s houses and were on talking terms. It is further submitted that one day the victim girl had informed the CCL that her parents were harassing her thus, she had threatened that if the CCL would not come and take her away, she would commit suicide. It is also submitted that thereafter, the CCL and the victim both ran away from the house. It is submitted that the CCL had also expressed his opinion before the Probation Officer that in view of his engagement with the victim girl, the parents of the victim girl ought not to have filed a case against him. Further, placing reliance on the Report of the Probation Officer, it is submitted that it was only on the insistence of the victim girl, the CCL had to elope with her. Considering all the above aspects, it is submitted that this Court may exercise discretion in favour of the CCL.

6) The Report of the Probation Officer suggests that from the tone of speaking, the CCL was found to be normal, self-oriented about the place, time, date and other things. His social understanding was also sharp and was also having an understanding of the entire situation.

7) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State Mr. Rohan H. Raval submitted that the CCL had a very clear understanding about the social repercussions and he also knew about the consequences of his own act, that itself would prove his mental and physical capacity of understanding the situation. The involvement of the present CCL is clearly reflected on record and therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Appellate Court