Bail for a Child in Conflict with Law is governed exclusively by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, due to its non-obstante clause, which excludes the application of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The Child in Conflict with Law, who is aged about 17 years 3 months and 12 days (hereinafter referred to as “CCL”), through his mother, has filed an application under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “JJ Act”) challenging the order dated 27.1.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Juvenile Appeal no. 15 of 2026 (Juvenile Case no. 393 of 2025) in connection with FIR bearing CR no. Part-A 11214042251330 of 2025 registered with Olpad Police Station, Surat Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 54, 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, and to release CCL on regular bail.

3. As per the case, FIR was filed against unknown person while the police during the investigation found that the deceased father was beating the mother of the CCL and therefore, CCL has brought his mother from Maharashtra to Surat and therefore, the deceased had verbally quarreled on the mobile phone and had threatened to beat and therefore, CCL had given an application before the Chok Bazar Police Station, Surat City and in connection with the application, the deceased was attending the Police Station to give his statement and in the meantime, the deceased and the CCL met. It is stated that two co-accused who are the relatives and the present CCL took the deceased to isolated place and it is alleged that under conspiracy has killed the father of the CCL. As per the police, on 22.7.2025 early morning, the deceased has come to Surat and the accused, in execution of the plan, took auto rickshaw of the accused – Dhanaji son of Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat, wherein accused – Sunil Dilip Patil was made to drive the rickshaw and the CCL himself and the deceased sat in the rickshaw and accused – Dhanaji son of Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat had followed them in another rented rickshaw and all headed towards three cross lanes towards Ashapura Mata Temple, Taluka Olpad, District Surat, where they stopped the rickshaw and at that time, there was quarrel and it was alleged that the accused – Dhanaji son of Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat gave a blow with the wooden log and CCL who had brought the knife along with him have given the blow on the neck and thus, caused death of his own father.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Lokhandwala submitted that the act of the CCL could always be considered as a nature of self-defence as he was protecting his own mother, and further stated that the complaint was given by Ravindra Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat and as per the complaint, when the deceased was lying, there was watch as well as one black colour cover for the knife and stated that there is no eye witness to the incident though the incident had taken place in an open area.

5. Countering the arguments, Mr. Pranav Dhagat, learned APP has submitted that CCL was carrying knife with him and thus, the very intention of the CCL was to murder his father, the CCL was accompanied by two others and thus, stated that the CCL was knowing about the consequences of his own act and the very conduct of the CCL shows that he has the maturity to understand the nature of his offence.

6. The admitted fact that remains that the CCL was displeased with the cruelty of his father towards his mother. He had even given the police complaint and according to the police, the deceased had come down for giving his statement and parallelly the p