Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision regarding the preliminary assessment of a child in conflict with law (CCL). Justice Chandra Dhari Singh considered whether the JJB had acted in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and found no grounds for interference under revisional jurisdiction. The Court stated, "It is well settled that this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. The scope of interference is limited to cases where there is manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice."

The case arose from an incident on September 3, 2022, when the deceased, Mohd. Haseeb, was reported missing after meeting an acquaintance, Naushad. The next day, on September 4, 2022, the petitioner, Mohd. Munib, lodged a missing person report (DD No. 4A) at Police Station - Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. On September 5, 2022, an FIR was registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Also Read: Once the order has been passed on a compromise or concession given by a party, that party cannot turn back and challenge the order before a higher court, unless it is a case of fraud: SC

During the investigation, CCTV footage showed Naushad’s nephew, Raja, moving the deceased’s scooty. Upon their arrest, Naushad, his son (the CCL in the case), and Raja stated that a financial dispute between Naushad and the deceased led to the incident. The prosecution alleged that Naushad instructed his son to retrieve a firearm and shoot Mohd. Haseeb. The body was later disposed of in Gang Nahar, Ghaziabad. The police recovered the deceased’s body, the firearm, four live cartridges, and the vehicle used for disposal. Based on these findings, additional charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of IPC were added.

Since the CCL was above 16 years old at the time of the incident, a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was required to determine if he should be tried as an adult. The petitioner sought his trial as an adult, citing the nature of the offense and his alleged involvement.

On October 28, 2022, the JJB granted bail to the CCL under Section 12 of the JJ Act and determined that he lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offense and understand its consequences. The petitioner challenged this order before the ASJ, questioning both the grant of bail and the decision not to try the CCL as an adult. On September 16, 2023, the ASJ dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then approached the Delhi High Court, seeking a revision of the ASJ’s decision.

The petitioner argued that the JJB did not conduct a proper preliminary assessment, disregarded key evidence, and did not provide an opportunity for a fair hearing. It was contended that the offense was premeditated and executed with criminal intent, necessitating trial as an adult. The petitioner also challenged the CCL’s age determination, stating that three different birth dates (June 27, 2005; June 17, 2005; and July 8, 2005) appeared in different documents, raising doubts over the CCL’s juvenility.

The prosecution submitted that the JJB had followed the legal framework, relying on school records, social investigation, and physical-mental assessment reports. It was argued that the school records, which recorded the CCL’s date of birth as July 8, 2005, constituted conclusive proof of his juvenility under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016. The Court recorded, "The JJB has followed the hierarchy laid down in Rule 12, relying on the first available document in the statutory order of preference."

The Court examined whether the JJB had applied the statutory provisions correctly regarding age determination and the preliminary assessment. It observed that under Section 94 of the JJ Act, school records are the primary evidence for age determination unless proven otherwise. The Court stated, "The petitioner has failed to present any legally admissible document which outweighs the school records relied upon by the JJB."

Regarding the preliminary assessment, the Court noted that the JJB’s decision was based on psychological and social investigation reports. The Court recorded, "The findings suggest that his decision-making ability was compromised due to his adolescent risk-taking behaviour, lack of parental supervision, and external influence, particularly by his father."

On the issue of bail, the Court examined Section 12 of the JJ Act, which provides a presumption in favor of bail unless certain exceptions apply. It recorded, "The severity of the offense alone cannot override the statutory presumption in favor of bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would associate the child with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice."

The Court also addressed the scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating, "This Court is not required to reappreciate the entire evidence but only to examine whether the findings of the lower forums suffer from manifest illegality or a gross miscarriage of justice." It found no such infirmity in the JJB’s or ASJ’s orders.

Also Read: Himachal Pradesh High Court Confirms Pre-Arrest Bail, Cites Complainant’s Refusal for Medical Examination in Rape Case

The petitioner contended that the JJB did not provide an opportunity for a fair hearing. The Court observed that there was no requirement for the complainant to be heard at the bail stage under the JJ Act. The Court stated, "The legislative intent does not indicate any requirement to notify or hear the complainant before considering a CCL’s bail application at any stage."

The Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the JJB to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law, stating, "The learned JJB shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner:Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate

For the Respondent (State): Mr. Satish Kumar, APP, with SI Satish Kumar

For the CCL: Mr. Rajiv Mohan,Mr. Swapnil Tripathi, Mr. Rehan Khan, Mr. Chandverr & Mr. Sachit Sharma, Advocates

Case Title: Mohd. Munib v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1588

Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 1112/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28607/2023

Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

[Read/Download order]