Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile Accused In POCSO Rape Case After Out-Of-Court Settlement
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice P.M. Raval granted regular bail to a juvenile in conflict with law facing allegations of rape and allied offences under the POCSO Act, after noting that the complainant had reached an out-of-court settlement and stated she had no objection to his release. Allowing the application, the Court directed that the juvenile be released on a bail bond of Rs. 5,000 with his father as surety and ordered that a probation officer monitor his conduct and submit quarterly reports, with behavioural therapy support to be arranged if found necessary. The Bench also referred to the Juvenile Justice framework, including the presumption of innocence, and observed it was “inclined to exercise discretion” in the juvenile’s favour in the circumstances.
The criminal revision application was filed by a juvenile through his father as guardian, seeking regular bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The application arose from an FIR registered at Thangadh Police Station, Surendranagar district, alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The prosecution case, as reflected in the order, was that the incident involved a relationship between two juveniles. The bail application of the juvenile had earlier been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and subsequently by the appellate court.
Before the High Court, the applicant contended that the statutory mandate under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act required release on bail, as none of the statutory exceptions were attracted. It was submitted that the investigation had concluded, a charge-sheet had been filed, and there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence. Reliance was also placed on the Probation Officer’s report, which did not disclose any adverse material.
The original complainant filed an affidavit stating that an out-of-court settlement had been arrived at and expressed no objection to the juvenile being released on bail. The State opposed the application, referring to the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, while leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court.
The Court noted at the outset that the original complainant had filed an affidavit indicating that a settlement had been arrived at and that there was no objection to the release of the juvenile on bail, observing that “the original complainant has filed an affidavit stating therein that settlement has been arrived at between the parties and he has no objection if the juvenile delinquent is released on bail.”
The Court proceeded to examine the statutory framework of the Juvenile Justice Act and recorded that Section 3 of the Act lays down general principles guiding its administration. Referring to these principles, the Court reproduced the statutory text, including “Principle of presumption of innocence,” “Principle of best interest,” and “Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort,” among others, noting that these principles govern decisions relating to children in conflict with law.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Juvenile in conflict with Law v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was observed that “from the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail with or without surety… unless proviso is applicable.”
Applying the above principles, the Court recorded that “In aforesaid view of the matter, considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement as well as considering the Report of the Probation Officer and physical and mental condition as well as the family condition of the juvenile in conflict with law, as narrated therein, General Principles as laid down in the JJ Act, referred to herein above, as well as the fact that now Charge-sheet in the case is filed and last but not the least, as there is nothing on record to show that proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act is applicable on the case on hand, the Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the present juvenile applicant.”
The Court directed that “this revision application is allowed.” It ordered that “the juvenile applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the above-referred FIR on surety of his father with bail bond of Rs.5,000/-.”
“The Probation Officer shall monitor the conduct of the juvenile in conflict with law and shall quarterly submit the report before the appellate Court till completion of the trial. If the Probation Officer considers any necessity of sending the juvenile for any behavior modification then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided.”
“The father of the juvenile to ensure that the juvenile will not fall into bad company. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant: Ms. Devangi B. Solanki, Advocate; Mr. Jaydeep J. Solanki, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, Advocate for the original complainant
Case Title: X v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:74535
Case Number: Criminal Revision Application (For Regular Bail) No. 2316 of 2025
Bench: Justice P. M. Raval
