Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the juvenile, accused of murder, against the rejection of his bail application by the Children Court, a Single-Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Garg, J., considering the nature of the allegations about juvenile’s involvement in heinous offences involving mental depravity, held that releasing him on bail at this juncture could undermine the interests of justice. The Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in the orders passed by the lower courts to warrant revisional interference and hence, dismissed the revision petition.
Background
The allegations were made against the juvenile for offences under Sections 103(1), 238(A) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). His bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) was rejected by the Children Court. Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail by the Children Court, the juvenile filed the present revision petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that under provisions of the BNSS the gravity of the offence significantly influences the court’s decision to grant or deny bail. But this factor is not singularly determinative for juveniles, as the law mandates a nuanced approach considering other factors. The statutory framework emphasises upon the release of a juvenile unless there is a substantial belief that such release could lead to association with known criminals, exposure to harm, moral, physical, or psychological, or otherwise frustrate the objectives of justice. This approach aligns with the rehabilitative and protective ethos underpinning juvenile justice legislation.
The Court observed that the juvenile did not appear to be at risk of associating with known offenders or being exposed to moral, physical, or psychological dangers. However, considering the nature of the allegations, specifically heinous offences involving mental depravity under Section 103(1) of the BNS, releasing the juvenile on bail at this juncture could undermine the interests of justice.
The Court noted that while the release of juveniles is generally favoured, circumstances threatening his safety or the interests of justice warrant caution. The gravity of the offence, particularly the allegation of mercilessly causing another person’s death, necessitates a cautious approach.
The Court observed that the Children Court and the Juvenile Justice Board had objectively and pragmatically evaluated the circumstances, ensuring that justice was served without compromising the juvenile’s future prospects or the societal interest. The Court found no illegality or procedural irregularity in the orders passed by the lower courts to warrant revisional interference.
The Court noted that the Juvenile Justice Board, in its preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, had explicitly determined that the applicant be tried as an adult. The Court noted that the allegations against the juvenile were serious and involved direct participation in a heinous crime. The case against the juvenile was supported by specific and substantive evidence, unlike the cases cited by the juvenile’s counsel where the evidence was either circumstantial, based on confessions not corroborated by witnesses, or involved mere presence at the scene.
In light of the afore-stated circumstances, especially the gravity of the offence, the juvenile’s direct involvement, and the absence of compelling reasons to grant bail, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the juvenile at this stage. The Court observed that the principles of justice and the need to uphold the integrity of the investigation and trial proceedings necessitate that the juvenile remain in custody. The Court dismissed the revision petition. The juvenile was granted liberty to file a fresh revision petition upon receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, should there be substantive grounds warranting reconsideration.
[X v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 681/2025, decided on 15-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: N.S. Acharya, Advocate
For the Respondent: P.K. Bhati, PP
