1. The application is moved under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'JJ' Act) against the order passed on 27.01.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2026 from the FIR registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City, FIR No. 11210021251145 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 296(b), 54 of BNS 2023 and under Section 135 of G.P. Act.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Matafer Pande for the child-in- conflict-with-law (for short, 'CCL') submitted that the age of the CCL is 15 years and 2 months and that though, the CCL had inflicted blow with the knife, but it was on the instigation of the accused Suraj alias Chota Malia. Advocate Mr. Pande thus stated that it was not on the criminal intent of the CCL but on the instigation and stated that considering the age, the CCL would not have that mental capacity to understand the consequences of his act and thus stated that the police in its own affidavit has referred to the accused where it becomes clear that it was only on the instigation of accused Suraj, the act has been done by the CCL.

3. On behalf of the main complainant, learned Advocate Mr. Janak Kamliya submitted that the CCL was in the bad company and the co-accused Surajsingh Rohtela alias Chota Malia is a notorious criminal who had been involved in the offences of assault, looting, snatching and as per the police, there are various offences registered against Suraj Rohtela and he was also detained under PASA Act. Advocate Mr. Kamliya submitted that the actual act had been done by the present CCL who gave a grevious injury on the neck, which has caused death. Advocate Mr. Kamliya submitted that the child was also found in the CCTV footage and there is a direct evidence of the act committed by the CCL.

4. Learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt has submitted that the mental capacity of the CCL to understand the consequences of the act could not be assessed because of the age of the CCL being 15 years and 2 months, but that would not give any benefit to the CCL since the facts of the case suggest that he had the criminal mind to commit the offence.

5. The provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act as has been provided intends not to punish the juvenile in conflict with law but to reform and rehabilitate them by proper care, protection development and social reintegration by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and in the dispose of the matter in the best interest. The act is based on the ground that child are the future of the society and in case, they go in conflict with law under certain circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. The primitive approach to CCL would be self-destructive for the society.

6. Here in the present matter, the age of the CCL is 15 years and 2 months. The affidavit of the Police Sub Inspector, Katargam, Surat City refers to the act which had been captured in the CCTV footage. The direct involvement of the present CCL has been shown. The affidavit of the IO also suggest that it was on the instigation by accused Suraj alias Chota Malia, the present CCL has inflicted a blow on the neck which had been fatal.

7. In the case of Child in Conflict with Law Through Savitaben Vitthalbhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC 244005 (passed in CRRA No.901 of 2021 on 28.04.2022)

          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.

          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 nonbailable 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."

8. Having considered the role of the CCL, who was instigated by the notorious criminal to do such act and the object of the J.J. Act, the present application succeeds and is allowed. The child in conflict with law is ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 11210021251145 registered before Katargam Police Station, Surat on the applicant's father executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with a condition that he would take care of his child for his good behavior and his well being.

9. It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the conduct of the child in conflict with law 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 juvenile for any behavior modification then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided to the child in conflict with law.

Direct service is permitted.