Bail for a child in conflict with law is governed by the special provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, which overrides the CrPC. Prolonged detention in a remand home without a finding to try the child as an adult justifies release on bail.

ORDER

1. The present revision application has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, the ‘JJ Act’) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 25.08.2025 rejecting the Criminal Appeal No.633 of 2025 confirming the order dated 25.07.2025 in CRMA-J No.11934 of 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Surat.

2. The offences have been registered with Dindoli Police Station, Surat as FIR being CR. No.11210056241461 of 2024 dated 17.06.2024 under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149 34, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and under Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and under Sections 3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav for the child-in-conflict-with-law (for short, ‘CCL’), who was aged about 17 years, 5 months, 12 days at the time of the incident, has filed the petition through the mother, submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15 of the JJ Act, after having considered the probation officer’s report and the psychologist’s report, had not found the CCL to be tried as an adult.

3.1 Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that there are nine accused in the matter where there were three CCL and six adult-accused. Out of that, four major accused and one CCL have been released on bail. Mr. Jadhav referring to the role attributed to major accused – Shubham @ Golu Gyaneshwar Patil submitted that the said accused had injured the deceased with the sword by giving one blow at the elbow and considering the role attributed, the bail came to be granted.

3.2 Advocate Mr. Jadhav submitted that since the CCL has not been sent to be tried as an adult by giving consideration to the probation officer’s report and the psychologist’s report, the fact would require consideration to examine the role attributed by the police to the present CCL, where in the charge-sheet, the role of the CCL is of inflicting a blow at the back of the deceased with the knife. Mr. Jadhav submitted that considering the array of the accused, the role of the CCL would not become very clear and further stated that since last two and a half year, the CCL is in the remand home and considering the provision submitted that further detention in the remand home would amount to pre-inquiry conviction.

4. Countering the arguments, learned APP Mr. Niraj Sharma submitted that it is not a simple case of sudden clash. Two days prior, there was some issue and thus, Shivam along with the deceased – Vijay had gone to the accused for settlement talks and it was at that time, the accused persons had assaulted and also submitted that earlier too, there was a complaint against the CCL under Section 326 of the IPC and thus, submitted that the CCL should be allowed to continue in the remand house for correctional measures.

4.1 APP Mr. Sharma submitted that since the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been invoked, the complainant is required to be heard.

4.2 APP Mr. Sharma stated that one of the witness had identified the accused before the learned Executive Magistrate, however, the JJ Board has not found fit to send the present CCL to be tried as an adult.

4.3 Since contention has been raised that the complainant is required to be heard, but considering the fact that the JJ Board has not ordered the CCL to be trie