Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the denial of bail to a juvenile accused under Sections 103(1), 238(A), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court upheld the decision of the Children Court, Bikaner, which had earlier denied the petitioner’s bail plea under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court concluded that, despite the general principle favouring bail for juveniles, the nature of the allegations—namely, a brutal murder involving multiple injuries on the victim—warranted a cautious approach. The Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to try the petitioner as an adult further influenced the court’s decision.

Also Read: PSU Cannot Deny Partnership Recognition Over Non-Participation Of All Heirs | Supreme Court Raps IOCL For Misreading Policy And Acting Arbitrarily After Partner’s Death

The revision petition was consequently dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition upon receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, should substantial grounds emerge. The Court held that granting bail in such circumstances could compromise the interests of justice and hinder the integrity of the trial process.

The petitioner, a juvenile, was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 103(1), 238(A), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). His bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was rejected by the learned Judge, Children Court, Bikaner, on 02.04.2025. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Rajasthan.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. He contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated without any material evidence and that the lower court had failed to appreciate his entitlement to protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It was submitted that the petitioner had been in custody for an extended period and that his further detention was unnecessary.

Further, the counsel stated that the gravity of the offence should not be the sole ground for denial of bail to a juvenile and pointed out that the probation officer’s report did not contain any adverse material. In support of the arguments, the petitioner relied on the following precedents:

• Juvenile in Conflict with Law vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9566/2024, dated 14.08.2024)

• CCL A vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 DHC 3061

• Child in Conflict with Law vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 GUJHC 19582

• X vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 (261) AIC 883

In response, the learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned order and stated that the petitioner, along with a co-accused, was involved in the brutal murder of one Pappu Sah, who sustained multiple injuries. It was submitted that the circumstances of the offence clearly suggested an intention amounting to culpable homicide. The prosecution maintained that the gravity of the crime and the seriousness of the allegations justified the denial of bail to the juvenile.

The Court stated that "the release of a juvenile on bail is the presumptive rule, with detention being an exception." However, it also acknowledged that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the gravity of the offence plays a significant role in determining bail. It further observed that "this factor cannot be singularly determinative in cases involving juveniles, as the law mandates a nuanced approach that considers other pertinent factors."

It was noted by the Court that "the statutory framework emphasizes that the release of a juvenile is generally preferred, unless there exists a substantial belief that such release could result in the juvenile associating with known criminals, or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological harm, or otherwise frustrate the objectives of justice."

After evaluating the submissions, the Court observed: "the juvenile does not appear to be at risk of association with known offenders or exposure to moral, physical, or psychological dangers." Despite this, the Court pointed out that the nature of the allegations—involving a heinous offence under Section 103(1) BNS—necessitated judicial restraint: "releasing him on bail at this juncture could undermine the interests of justice."

The Court relied on prior judgments, including Vishal @ Ritik v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1520/2017, decided on 23.01.2018) and Rahul Solanki v. State of Rajasthan, 2020(3) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 839. These decisions supported the position that juvenile release must be measured against the risk to justice and safety.

Concerning the cited cases by the petitioner, the Court noted distinctions. In Juvenile in Conflict with Law v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., the Supreme Court stated the importance of psychological reports and found the juvenile was not in the "high-risk category." However, the Juvenile Justice Board in the present matter had, via order dated 17.03.2025, determined that the applicant be tried as an adult.

In Child in Conflict with Law v. State of NCT Delhi, the juvenile’s role was limited to mere presence with no recovery or direct involvement. In Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Gujarat, the case was based on uncorroborated third-party statements. Similarly, X v. State of Uttarakhand dealt with consensual relations involving a minor.

The Court remarked: "the allegations against the petitioner are serious and involve direct participation in a heinous crime. The case against the petitioner is supported by specific and substantive evidence, unlike the cases cited where the evidence was either circumstantial, based on confessions not corroborated by witnesses, or involved mere presence at the scene."

Also Read: Compulsory Retirement Not A Shortcut To Disciplinary Action | Orissa High Court Quashes Premature Exit Of District Judge Without Proven Misconduct

The Court held that "in light of the totality of circumstances, especially the gravity of the offence, the direct involvement of the petitioner, and the absence of compelling reasons to grant bail, this Court is not inclined to favor the petitioner with bail at this stage."

It was concluded that "the principles of justice and the need to uphold the integrity of the investigation and trial proceedings necessitate that the petitioner remain in custody."

The revision petition was dismissed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a new revision petition if the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report provided substantial grounds for reconsideration: "the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh revision petition upon receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, should there be substantive grounds warranting reconsideration."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. N.S. Acharya, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: XXX v State of Rajasthan

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:30969

Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 681/2025

Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Garg