SANJAY SANTOSH KOKRE THROUGH SAVITA SANTOSH KOKREversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/1059/2026                               ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1059
                          of 2026
==========================================================
     SANJAY SANTOSH KOKRE THROUGH SAVITA SANTOSH KOKRE
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
                  Date : 27/04/2026
                      ORDER
1.     RULE. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the

       respondent – State.


2.     The Child in Conflict with Law, who is aged about 17 years 3

       months and 12 days (hereinafter referred to as “CCL”),

       through his mother, has filed an application under Section

       102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

       Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as

       “JJ Act”) challenging the order dated 27.1.2026 passed by the

       learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in

       Criminal Juvenile Appeal no. 15 of 2026 (Juvenile Case no.

       393 of 2025) in connection with FIR bearing CR no. Part-A

       11214042251330     of   2025     registered    with     Olpad     Police

       Station, Surat Rural for the offence punishable under Sections

       103(1), 54, 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and



                               Page 1 of 9
     R/CR.RA/1059/2026                           ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




       Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, and to release CCL on

       regular bail.


3.     As per the case, FIR was filed against unknown person while

       the police during the investigation found that the deceased

       father was beating the mother of the CCL and therefore, CCL

       has brought his mother from Maharashtra to Surat and

       therefore, the deceased had verbally quarreled on the mobile

       phone and had threatened to beat and therefore, CCL had

       given an application before the Chok Bazar Police Station,

       Surat City and in connection with the application, the

       deceased was attending the Police Station to give his

       statement and in the meantime, the deceased and the CCL

       met. It is stated that two co-accused who are the relatives

       and the present CCL took the deceased to isolated place and

       it is alleged that under conspiracy has killed the father of the

       CCL. As per the police, on 22.7.2025 early morning, the

       deceased has come to Surat and the accused, in execution of

       the plan, took auto rickshaw of the accused – Dhanaji son of

       Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat, wherein accused – Sunil Dilip

       Patil was made to drive the rickshaw and the CCL himself and

       the deceased sat in the rickshaw and accused – Dhanaji son

       of Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat had followed them in another



                                Page 2 of 9
     R/CR.RA/1059/2026                          ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




       rented rickshaw and all headed towards three cross lanes

       towards Ashapura Mata Temple, Taluka Olpad, District Surat,

       where they stopped the rickshaw and at that time, there was

       quarrel and it was alleged that the accused – Dhanaji son of

       Ramchandra Mutthu Kharat gave a blow with the wooden log

       and CCL who had brought the knife along with him have given

       the blow on the neck and thus, caused death of his own

       father.


4.     Learned advocate Mr. Lokhandwala submitted that the act of

       the CCL could always be considered as a nature of self-

       defence as he was protecting his own mother, and further

       stated that the complaint was given by Ravindra Ramchandra

       Mutthu Kharat and as per the complaint, when the deceased

       was lying, there was watch as well as one black colour cover

       for the knife and stated that there is no eye witness to the

       incident though the incident had taken place in an open area.


5.     Countering the arguments, Mr. Pranav Dhagat, learned APP

       has submitted that CCL was carrying knife with him and thus,

       the very intention of the CCL was to murder his father, the

       CCL was accompanied by two others and thus, stated that the

       CCL was knowing about the consequences of his own act and

       the very conduct of the CCL shows that he has the maturity to


                               Page 3 of 9
     R/CR.RA/1059/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




       understand the nature of his offence.


6.     The admitted fact that remains that the CCL was displeased

       with the cruelty of his father towards his mother. He had even

       given the police complaint and according to the police, the

       deceased had come down for giving his statement and

       parallelly the police has made the case of conspiracy. Under

       the given circumstances, the co-accused as relatives and the

       CCL were traveling along with the deceased and the facts of

       the case suggest that the deceased had traveled along with all

       of them and quarrel took place and at that time, the co-

       accused had given a blow to the deceased with wooden log.

       What were the circumstances under which the quarrel took

       place and how the deceased reacted to the quarrel and was

       defending himself during this quarrel against his father has

       not come on record.


7.     The report of the Probation Officer shows that the father was

       a drunkard and was also mentally ill and while there is no any

       criminal antecedents of the CCL and he was found to be

       staying       with   other   children       in   the    observation        home

       peacefully.


8.     This Court had an occasion to deal with the bail application of



                                     Page 4 of 9
R/CR.RA/1059/2026                                ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




  a CCL and while granting bail, this Court had an occasion to

  deal with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and had

  explicitly laid down that Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. would not

  be applicable on the issue of grant or denial of bail to a child

  alleged to have committed bailable or non-bailable offence

  which is dealt with by the special statute i.e. Juvenile Justice

  (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which contains

  specific provision for bail under Section 12 of the Act. In the

  case of Child in Conflict with Law Through Savitaben

  Vitthalbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat, 2022 (0) AIJEL-HC

  244005 (passed in CRRA no.901 of 2021 on 28.04.2022), it

  has been observed as under:-


           “15. Explanation to Section 15 of the JJ Act,
           2015 stipulates that in case of a heinous
           offence alleged to have been committed by a
           child, who has completed or is above the age
           of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a
           preliminary assessment with regard to his
           mental and physical capacity to commit such
           offence, ability to understand the consequence
           of the offence and the circumstances in which
           he allegedly committed the offence and then
           may pass an order in accordance with the
           provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 18.
           Thus, the whole endeavour of the JJ Act, 2015
           is to protect a child in conflict with law from the
           path of destruction and being a menace to the
           Society. The object is reformative and not
           retributive.

           16. Now, under these circumstances upon
           preliminary assessment made by the JJ Board


                              Page 5 of 9
R/CR.RA/1059/2026                                ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




           under Section 15(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 and
           when the need is found for the trial of the child
           as an adult and his case is ordered to be
           transferred to the Children’s Court, the
           relevant consideration would be whether the
           child in conflict with law de-jure become an
           adult to be treated as a child in the subsequent
           proceedings and thus the question would be
           whether the application for bail would be
           maintainable in the High Court under Section
           439 for the child in conflict with law, who is
           sent for trial before the Children’s Court or
           whether the application for bail should be
           considered under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

           17. Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 which
           deals with the grant of bail to a child expressly
           contains the nonobstante phrase to be as “....
           notwithstanding anything contained in the
           Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
           or in any other law for the time being in force,
           be released on bail ...”. This very provision in
           Section 12 clarifies that provisions of Cr.PC is
           excluded in the case of bail plea of the child.
           Further, it requires to be noted that Section 12
           is a specific provision under the special statute
           that deals with the matter of bail and
           accordingly, the application of Section 439 of
           the Cr.PC is also necessarily excluded. Cr.PC
           contains a corresponding clause which is for
           application on special lines. Considering this
           aspect in case of a bail application on behalf a
           child, it would be required to be concluded that
           such bail plea would not be maintable under
           Section 439 of Cr.PC.

           18. The order under Section 18(3) of the JJ
           Act transferring the trial of the case to the
           Children’s Court would not declare the child as
           an adult. Child in conflict with law is defined
           under Section 2(13) of the JJ Act, 2015 to
           mean a child who has not completed 18 years
           as on date of the commission of the offence.

           19.      Non-applicability of Section 439 of Cr.PC


                                Page 6 of 9
R/CR.RA/1059/2026                               ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




           in case of child in conflict with law has been
           appreciated by various High Courts. This Court
           would like to refer to the decision of the High
           Court of Delhi in the case of CCL ‘A’ v. State
           (NCT of Delhi) in Bail Application No.2510/2020
           (dated 19.10.2020), where the Court had
           observed as under :-

           “44. In formulating the above position, this
           court finds support in the view taken by the
           Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court
           in Tejram Nagrachi Juvenile vs. State of
           Chhattisgarh Through the Station House
           Officer4, where the Division Bench has opined
           that an application for grant of bail under
           section 437 Cr.P.C. or 439 Cr.P.C. would not be
           maintainable in the case of a juvenile. The
           relevant paras of the judgment are as under:

           "7.   A conjoint analysis of the provisions
           contained in Sections 437 and 439 of the Code
           viz a viz Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Act, 2015
           would discern that while there are certain
           general guidelines under Sections 437 & 439 of
           the Code, power in respect of grant of bail to a
           juvenile is more liberal in the nature of
           command under Section 12(1) that whenever
           an apparent juvenile alleged to have
           committed a bailable or non-bailable offence is
           detained by the police or appears or brought
           before     a    Board,   such    person     shall,
           notwithstanding anything contained in the
           Code or in any other law for the time being in
           force, be released on bail with or without
           surety or placed under the supervision of a
           probation officer or under the care of any fit
           person. The only rider for not releasing the
           apparent juvenile is that whenever there
           appears reasonable grounds for believing that
           the release is likely to bring that person
           (Juvenile) into association with any known
           criminal or expose the said person to moral,
           physical or psychological danger or his release
           would defeat the ends of justice, the Board
           shall record the reasons for denying the bail


                              Page 7 of 9
R/CR.RA/1059/2026                                ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




           and circumstances that led to such a decision.
           This rider as contained in proviso to Section
           12(1) requires the Board to record reasons for
           denying the bail. It would mean that ordinarily
           the bail is to be allowed to a juvenile. The
           denial being exceptional on certain reasons to
           be recorded by the Board as provided in the
           proviso. This special provision is not contained
           under Section 439 of the Code.

           "8. .......... While there is no denial of the fact
           that when the Court of Sessions exercises
           appellate power under Section 101(2) and the
           High Court exercises revisional power under
           Section 102 of the Act of 2015, it shall exercise
           power of the Board provided under Section
           8(2), but this power of the Board would also be
           available to the Court of Sessions or to the
           High Court when it proceeds to examine the
           plea of juvenile for grant of bail whenever such
           occasion arises on account of bail application of
           juvenile being rejected under Section 12 of the
           Act of 2015. Therefore, by use of the term
           "otherwise" in Section 8(2), jurisdiction under
           Section 439 of the Code would not be attracted
           which is otherwise excluded by use of the term
           "notwithstanding anything contained in the
           Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
           or in any other law for the time being in force",
           as occurring in Section 12 (1)." (emphasis
           supplied)

           20. The law therefore, is clear on the aspect
           that since Section 12 of the JJ Act bears a non-
           obstante clause which indicates legislative
           intent that the source of power to grant bail
           under the JJ Act, 2015 is independent from
           that of the Cr.PC. Thus, it can be said to be
           concluded that Section 439 of the Cr.PC is not
           applicable on the issue of grant or denial of bail
           to a child alleged to have committed bailable or
           non-bailable offence who is to be dealt with by
           the Special Statute, i.e. JJ Act, 2015 which
           contains the specific provision for bail under
           Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015.”


                              Page 8 of 9
       R/CR.RA/1059/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026




9.         In this background of the matter having observed the

           Probation Officer’s report, the present application is allowed.

           The Child in Conflict with Law is ordered to be released on bail

           in      connection            with        the      FIR        bearing          CR       no.       Part-A

           11214042251330                    of     2025        registered           with       Olpad         Police

           Station, Surat Rural on the applicant’s mother executing a

           personal bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees ten

           thousand only) with surety of like amount before the

           Children’s Court with a condition that mother would take care

           of her child for his good behaviour and his well being.


10.        It is directed that the Probation Officer shall monitor the

           conduct of the CCL and shall quarterly submit the report

           before the concerned Board/Children’s Court till completion of

           the trial. Moreover, if the Probation Officer considers any

           necessity of sending the CCL for any behaviour modification,

           then necessary therapy and psychiatric support be provided

           to the CCL.


11.        Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Direct service is

           permitted.


                                                                                                 (GITA GOPI,J)
          Maulik
     Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
     Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/04/2026 17:16:28


                                                     Page 9 of 9