Under specialized juvenile legislation, bail is the rule and denial is an exception. Courts must prioritize rehabilitative objectives, strictly perform mandatory preliminary assessments regarding the minor's capacity, and ensure bail applications are not adjudicated using the standard procedures applied to adult defendants.

ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent - State.

2. The Child in conflict with law (herein after referred to as ‘the CCL’), 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’), challenges the order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2025 confirming the order dated 10.11.2025 passed in CRMA J No.17088 of 2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Surat in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11210060251058 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 352 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and Section 135 of the G.P. Act registered before the Varachha Police Station, Surat dated 12.04.2025.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Raajen D.Jadhav referring to the facts of the case submitted that the knife, as has has been attributed to the CCL, who was aged about 16 years and 3 months, has not been recovered from the possession of the CCL. Mr. Jadhav stated that the fact of the case rather shows that it was the complainant, his elder brother and his friend, who were going triple seat, had gone towards the CCL and the co-accused, Gautam @ Choteraja Budhabhai @ Surabhai Jodhabhai Gohil aged 18 years and 4 months. Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that the complainant was aged about 58 years, deceased was 59 years and friend of the complainant Surendra was aged about 68 years.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that, as per the complaint, it was the deceased, who had flicked on head of CCL and the co-accused after alighting from the vehicle and submitted that considering the age of the deceased, his brother and his friend, to that of age of the CCL aged about 16 years and 3 months and the co-accused, who had just completed 18 years, the quarrel has to be examined.

3.2 Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that the actual fact is not coming on record, since it is only the complainant’s version, which is on record; what had occurred for the CCL and the co-accused to take the law in hands have not been brought on record. Mr. Jadhav submitted that the act may be for right of private defence, and submitted that the recovery of the knife was from the co-accused.

4. Learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma for the State submitted that the observation of the learned appellate Court is that the CCL had inflicted the blows with rambo knife and the quarrel was because the CCL and co-accused had on their Moped intervened the passage by coming in front. Learned APP stated that since the present CCL had inflicted the blows, the order of the appellate Court is required to be upheld.

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The appellate Court has not recorded of any order passed below Section 15 of the J.J. Act. It has not become clear whether the appellate Court has been functioning as a Children Court. Though, reference has been made of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, the appellate Court has not taken into consideration the observation of the J.J. Board or the Children’s Court under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, to observe by way of preliminary assessment, the mental and physical capacity of the CCL to commit such offence or the ability to understand the consequenc