Bombay High Court
Uttam Valji BhushanversusMrs Menal Dhrumil Patel
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the applicant’s reckless stunt conduct, lack of parental control and the seriousness of the offence fall within the exception under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, justifying the cancellation of bail.
Summary
The applicant, who was 17 years and 8 months old at the time of a fatal road accident caused by reckless driving and stunt activities, had been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. The Additional Sessions Judge cancelled that bail, invoking the exception under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, on grounds of lack of parental control and danger to society. The applicant challenged this order through a criminal revision application, arguing his minority, lack of intent, and good conduct. The State and the victim’s family contended that the applicant’s habitual stunt behavior, evidence destruction, and failure to comply with bail conditions justified the cancellation. The High Court examined the facts, found the applicant’s conduct dangerous and the parental control absent, and held that the exception under Section 12 applied, thereby upholding the cancellation of bail. Consequently, the revision application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the exception under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act applies to a child in conflict with law who commits a serious offence.
- Whether bail granted by the Juvenile Justice Board can be set aside by the Sessions Court.
- Whether the applicant’s age and conduct justify treating him as an adult for bail purposes.
- Whether the destruction of evidence and non‑compliance with bail conditions affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- juvenile justice
- child in conflict with law
- bail cancellation
- reckless driving
- vehicular homicide
- permanent disability
- parental control
- evidence destruction
- reformative home
Judgment
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 396 OF 2026
Uttam Valji Bhushan ...Applicant
Vs.
Mrs. Menal Dhrumil Patel and Anr. ...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Jitesh Jadhav a/w. Sushant Valimbe a/w. Manish Singh a/w. Abhijeet
Yadav a/w. Padmavati Vaishya a/w. Nihal Mishra, Advocates for
Applicant.
Mr. Atharva Dandekar a/w. Ruben Mascarenhas a/w. Tejas Gupta a/w.
Varad Sirsikar a/w. Khushida Shaikh a/w. Hitendra Parab, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI Takawale Trupti, Tilaknagar Police Station present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, Respondent No.1 and
learned APP for the State.
2. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order
passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, whereby he has
allowed the Criminal Appeal and cancelled the bail granted to the
Applicant by the Juvenile Justice Board, Suburban, Dongri, Mumbai, at
the time of incident Applicant was a child in conflict with Law (for short,
‘CCL’). Now the applicant is major.
3. It is prosecution's case that on 05/02/2026, Applicant drove the
car of his father rashly and negligently and at an excessive speed and gave
Page 1 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
dash to the husband of Respondent No.1, who was riding a bike. Due to
the said dash, the husband of Respondent No.1 died while undergoing
treatment and Respondent No.1 became permanently disabled. It is
alleged that at the time of the incident, Applicant was 17 years and 8
months' old. The Juvenile Justice Board (for short, 'JJB') granted bail to
the Applicant. The said order was challenged before the Learned Sessions
Court. Accordingly, the Learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned
order which is under challenge.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that at the
time of the incident, Applicant was below 18 years of age. The incident
happened suddenly. The Applicant had no intention to give a dash to
Respondent No.1 and her husband. At the time of incident, Applicant was
studying in 12th Standard. He was in observation home for around 10
days. He has co-operated with the investigation. Presently he is in First
Year, he is attending college regularly. He is not residing in the vicinity
where the incident occurred. Investigation is completed. Charge sheet has
been filed. Applicant is attending the proceedings before the JJB regularly.
Applicant has no antecedents. Considering the age of the Applicant and
the fact that he is student, the Learned Sessions Judge should not have
cancelled his bail. No purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant
in observation home. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the
Page 2 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
JJB's order, Applicant was staying outside the jurisdiction of Tilak Nagar
Police Station and he has complied with all the terms and conditions of JJB
and he does not fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice
Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Juvenile Justice Act').
Learned counsel further submits that there are no specifics regarding the
visit of the Applicant to the incident spot after the registration of the crime.
Plea has been recorded and he requested to allow the application. He
relied on the following judgments.
1. Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.1
2. Pooja Gagan Jain Vs. Stat of Maharashtra2;
3. Raman S/o. Prakash Mundhe and Anr. Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and Anr. 3
5. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 that Applicant was in the habit of performing stunts on
bikes and cars on public road. He posted his stunt acts on his Instagram
account. The act of the Applicant was dangerous to the public. . It shows
that he had habit of driving the vehicle rashly and negligently causing
danger to the general public. On the day of incident, he drove the car in
such a way and at an excessive speed and gave a dash to the deceased and
respondent No.1, who had no fault, as they were proceeding on the road
on their side. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the
1 Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 7678 of 2019.
2 Criminal Writ Petition No. 2372 of 2024 dated 25th June 2024
3 Anticipatory Bail Application No. 277 of 2022 dated 15th July 2022.
Page 3 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
Applicant. Applicant was 17 years and 8 months' old at the time of the
accident. So, he was almost major. It is not that the Applicant was driving
the vehicle for first time. Due to the act of the Applicant, the deceased
lost his life and Respondent No.1 has become completely paralyzed and
she is unable to move. So she has to suffer throughout her life without any
fault on her part.
6. Learned App further submitted that after being released on bail,
Applicant visited the crime spot and his parents were aware about the
stunt videos posted on the Instagram, but they did not take any
precautionary measures. The JJ Board observed that they had no control
over him. Learned App further submitted that while releasing the
Applicant on bail, the learned JJ Board in paragraph 13 has observed that
the parents of the Applicant are capable of taking care of him. But in
paragraph 16, the JJ Board has observed that there is lack of parental
control. Nevertheless, he was enlarged on bail. This case falls within the
exception to Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act as he will be exposed to
moral, physical and psychological danger due to lack of parental control
and the group of friends who also perform stunts and it will defeat the
ends of justice. Thus, falling within the proviso to Section 12 Sub-section
(1). Hence, his bail being set aside by the Learned Appellate Court is
proper. Learned App further submitted that after registering the offence
Page 4 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
against the Applicant, his performing stunts videos and photographs on
Instagram Account were deleted, which amounts to destruction of
evidence, and the friend of the Applicant has been charged for the said act.
Learned App further submitted that after setting aside the order of JJB,
when police visited Applicant's address at Koparkhairane, where he was
supposed to stay as per the bail condition, he was not found there and the
police thereafter visited the Applicant’s residence at Chembur's, where the
mother of the Applicant informed the police that she was not aware about
the whereabouts of the Applicant. He submitted that the Learned Judge
has passed a well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it and
requested to reject the application.
7. Heard rival submissions. Perused impugned order. While
setting aside the order passed by the Learned JJB, the learned Sessions
Judge has observed that in the incident, one person who was an earning
member of the family lost his life. Respondent No.1 became permanently
disabled due to the stunt performed by the CCL. On the date of the
incident, CCL was 17 years and 8 months’ old. He further observed that,
the family of CCL had offered some money to the victims to settle the
matter and it reveals that CCL was involved in the company of spoiled
and affluent children and was making stunts on two wheelers and four
wheelers, which may be dangerous to the lives of other persons. If he is
Page 5 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
kept in the reformation room, then it would be useful for the CCL as well
as in the interest of society at large. Releasing the CCL, within a short
period of the incident, would not serve the ends of justice and would
undermine the confidence of society. I do not find infirmity in observations
of learned judge. It appears from record that the Applicant was in the
habit of making stunts on two-wheelers and four wheelers. He was not
only performing such stunts, but he was also posting videos of the stunts
on the public Instagram page “ryankelafdebaaz”. The screenshots of the
said Instagram page have been produced on record, which show the
Applicant driving a car while one of his friends was lying flat on the bonnet
and windshield of the said car, and while his other friends were hanging out of
the said car without wearing seatbelts. The same shows that the Applicant was
not only reckless about his own safety but also that of the others around
him. The screenshot further shows the Applicant riding a scooter with 2
pillion riders without any helmet and performing a wheelie with two of his
friends on the pillion seat etc. It shows that Applicant
not only put the health and safety of himself, but also of others,
at risk, and he was in the habit of boasting about his acts. His parents were
aware of the said acts, but they did not take any efforts to control the act
of the Applicant. Resultantly, one person has lost his life and other
became completely paralyzed without any fault on their part.
The Applicant was driving the two-wheeler and four-
Page 6 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
wheeler vehicle before attaining the age of 18, which is the lawful age for
driving a vehicle, and he was driving them on the road precariously, which
would have caused danger to the general public, who were not at fault. It
shows that parents of the Applicant have no control over the activities of
the Applicant. At the time of the incident, Applicant was 17 years and 8
months' old. It was as good as being 18 years of age. It is necessary to
curb such activities, which spoil children and causes threat to the society.
Though he is a student, keeping him in a reformative home would make
him understand gravity of his act. After releasing the Applicant by the JJB,
he was supposed to stay at Koparkhairane, but when police made an
enquiry, he was not available at the given address, nor had he contacted
the police after making the enquiry. It shows that he has scant respect for
the orders passed by lawful authority. Now, the Applicant is a major.
When he was a child, there was no parental control over him. The
Applicant would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger
due to lack of parental control. He may again indulge in stunt act with his
friends, causing danger to others. It will defeat ends of justice.The stunt
videos are deleted from his Instagram account, which amounts to
destruction of evidence, and friend of the Applicant has been charged for
the said offence. The Learned Sessions Judge has passed well-reasoned
order therefore no interference is required in it.
Page 7 of 8
902- Revn 396 of 2026 VD(1).doc
Tikam
8. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in the
application. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned
counsel for the Applicant. The facts of the cited cases and present case are
different, hence, not applicable. In view of the above, I pass following
order:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application is rejected.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…