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 police has made the case of conspiracy. Under the given circumstances, the co-accused as relatives and the CCL were traveling along with the deceased and the facts of the case suggest that the deceased had traveled along with all of them and quarrel took place and at that time, the co- accused had given a blow to the deceased with wooden log. What were the circumstances under which the quarrel took place and how the deceased reacted to the quarrel and was defending himself during this quarrel against his father has not come on record.

7. The report of the Probation Officer shows that the father was a drunkard and was also mentally ill and while there is no any criminal antecedents of the CCL and he was found to be staying with other children in the observation home peacefully.

8. This Court had an occasion to deal with the bail application of a CCL and while granting bail, this Court had an occasion to deal with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and had explicitly laid down that Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. would not be applicable on the issue of grant or denial of bail to a child alleged to have committed bailable or non-bailable offence which is dealt with by the special statute i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which contains specific provision for bail under Section 12 of the Act. In the case of Child in Conflict with Law Through Savitaben Vitthalbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat, 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 244005 (passed in CRRA no.901 of 2021 on 28.04.2022), it has been observed as under:-

          "15. Explanation to Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 stipulates that in case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence and then may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 18. Thus, the whole endeavour of the JJ Act, 2015 is to protect a child in conflict with law from the path of destruction and being a menace to the Society. The object is reformative and not retributive.

          16. Now, under these circumstances upon preliminary assessment made by the JJ Board under Section 15(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 and when the need is found for the trial of the child as an adult and his case is ordered to be transferred to the Children's Court, the relevant consideration would be whether the child in conflict with law de-jure become an adult to be treated as a child in the subsequent proceedings and thus the question would be whether the application for bail would be maintainable in the High Court under Section 439 for the child in conflict with law, who is sent for trial before the Children's Court or whether the application for bail should be considered under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

          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 case of bail plea of the child. Further, it requires to be noted that Section 12 is a specific provision under the special statute that deals with the matter of bail and accordingly, the application of Section 439 of the Cr.PC is also necessarily excluded. Cr.PC contains a corresponding clause which is for application on special lines. Considering this aspect in case of a bail application on behalf a child, it would be required to be concluded that such bail plea would not be maintable under Section 439 of Cr.PC.

          18. The order under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act transferring the trial of the case to the Children's Court would not declare the child as an adult. Child in conflict with law is defined under Section 2(13) of the JJ Act, 2015 to mean a child who has not completed 18 years as on date of the commission of the offence.

          19. Non-applicability of Section 439 of Cr.PC in case of child in conflict with law has been appreciated by various High Courts. This Court would like to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CCL 'A' v. State (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Application No.2510/2020 (dated 19.10.2020), where the Court had observed as under :-

          "44. In formulating the above position, this court finds support in the view taken by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Tejram Nagrachi Juvenile vs. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer4, where the Division Bench has opined that an application for grant of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. or 439 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable in the case of a juvenile. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under:

          "7. A conjoint analysis of the provisions contained in Sections 437 and 439 of the Code viz a viz Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Act, 2015 would discern that while there are certain general guidelines under Sections 437 & 439 of the Code, power in respect of grant of bail to a juvenile is more liberal in the nature of command under Section 12(1) that whenever an apparent juvenile alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence is detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The only rider for not releasing the apparent juvenile is that whenever there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person (Juvenile) into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. This rider as contained in proviso to Section 12(1) requires the Board to record reasons for denying the bail. It would mean that ordinarily the bail is to be allowed to a juvenile. The denial being exceptional on certain reasons to be recorded by the Board as provided in the proviso. This special provision is not contained under Section 439 of the Code.

          "8. .......... While there is no denial of the fact that when the Court of Sessions exercises appellate power under Section 101(2) and the High Court exercises revisional power under Section 102 of the Act of 2015, it shall exercise power of the Board provided under Section 8(2), but this power of the Board would also be available to the Court of Sessions or to the High Court when it proceeds to examine the plea of juvenile for grant of bail whenever such occasion arises on account of bail application of juvenile being rejected under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. Therefore, by use of the term "otherwise" in Section 8(2), jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code would not be attracted which is otherwise excluded by use of the term "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force", as occurring in Section 12 (1)." (emphasis supplied)

          20. The law therefore, is clear on the aspect that since Section 12 of the JJ Act bears a non- obstante clause which indicates legislative intent that the source of power to grant bail under the JJ Act, 2015 is independent from that of the Cr.PC. Thus, it can be said to be concluded that Section 439 of the Cr.PC is not applicable on the issue of grant or denial of bail to a child alleged to have committed bailable or non-bailable offence who is to be dealt with by the Special Statute, i.e. JJ Act, 2015 which contains the specific provision for bail under Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015."

9. In this background of the matter having observed the Probation Officer's report, the present application is allowed. The Child in Conflict with Law is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the FIR bearing CR no. Part-A 11214042251330 of 2025 registered with Olpad Police Station, Surat Rural on the applicant's mother executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees ten thousand only) with surety of like amount before the Children's Court with a condition that mother would take care of her child for his good behaviour and his well being.

10. It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the conduct of the CCL and shall quarterly submit the report before the concerned Board/Children's Court till completion of the trial. Moreover, if the Probation Officer considers any necessity of sending the CCL for any behaviour modification, then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to the CCL.

11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Direct service is permitted.