REPORT ON ALL CASES FILED IN APPEAL

BY THE JJB (JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD’s)

TO THE SESSION/HIGH COURTS OF INDIA)

COMPILED BY:-
ASHISH TIWARI
BBA.LLB
IVTH YEAR
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY,
PUNE
SIU
 AN ANALYSIS

NAME OF NAME WHY DID WHO DID IT OBERVATION/A

THE OF THE PREFERRED OVERR NALYSIS
COURT THE MATTER THE APPEAL ULE
CASE REACH THE
HIGH DECIDI
COURT ON OF
JJB?
ALLAHABA 1). The Bail The No, it As the accused was
D HIGH Akhilesh application of accused/Appella upheld charged under
COURT vs. State the Juvenile nt the heinous crime and if
of U.P was rejected decision released would
And by the JJB & of the expose to the
Anr. Session court? JJB & criminal world and
(Decided Hence appeal Session there was no one to
on under Section court take care of Juvenile
04.10.20 53 of JJ Act. his bail application
10) was rejected.
2). Lalji The Bail The Yes, it As the Act repealed
Yadav application accused/Appella overruled the old one and there
alias was rejected nt the is o provision for
Lalit by the Juvenile decision Juvenile Judge and
Kumar Judge and was of the thereafter no such
(in Jail) also by the Juvenile jurisdiction occurs
Vs. session Judge Judge? to give orders. The
State of and thus juvenile may move
U.P. appeal for bail an application under
(decided under JJ Act? Sec. 437 Cr.P.C
on before Magistrate, if
16.12.20 rejected he may
02) move bail
application to
Session judge/High
Court under Sec.
439 Cr.P.C. A
application for bail
can only be decided
uder the provisions
of Cr.P.C. hence the
revision was
disposed of with
such direction.
3). Atul The revision The Yes, it As according to JJB,
Kumar petition was accused/Appella overrule it rejected the Bail
@Kulde filed by the nt the on the ground that
ep vs. accused/appell decision the accused might
State of ant under Sec. of the not get in contact
U.P and 52 of the JJ JJB with the criminal
Anr. Act, for the known world, but
(Decided rejection of should not have
on Bail ignored Sec. 12 of
25.0920 application by the JJ Act.
08) the JJB, even Thereafter the bail
after he was was granted to the
declared as Petitioner.
Juvenile.
4). Lavi The revision The Yes, the The learned court
Yadav petition was appellant/accuse decision held that as JJB
alias filed by the d of the wrongly rejected the
Love appellant/accu JJB & bail on the ground
Yadav sed on the Session that the heinous
vs. State ground of Judge crime cases are
of U.P rejection of was pending against the
and Anr. Bail overruled accused and thus, if
(Decided application by . released would
on the JJB & expose to the
31.01.20 session Judge. criminal world. Thus
08) Hence this on the basis of Sec.
appeal. 12 and being a
Juvenile, the Court
quashed the decision
of the JJB & session
court and set aside
and released the
accused/petitioner.
5). Nihal The criminal The Yes, it The JJB & Session
vs. State revision petitioner/accus overruled committed error, in
of U.P petition was ed. the disbelieving the
(Decided filed by the decision School leaving
on petitioned/accu of JJB & certificate and marks
16.01.20 sed for session sheet and to have
12) rejection of his court. called for
bail radiological age of
application and Juvenile. Their
refusing of his decision was
date of birth on incorrect and
the date of improper and thus is
commencemen liable to be set aside,
 t of the alleged and thus the revision
crime by the petition by petitioner
JJB & Session for grating of Bail
Court application is
allowed.
6). The revision The Yes, it The court found
Kaloo petition has accused/Petition overruled that, JJB rejected the
vs. State been preferred er the Bail application on
of U.P by the decision the ground that if
(decided Accused/petiti of JJB released on bail
on oner on the and would defeat the
16.06.20 ground of session ends of justice and
14) refusal of bail court. without giving any
application by other grounds was
the JJB & rejected from the
Session court, plea of granting bail.
though the Hence the petition
revisionist was was allowed keeping
declared as the
Juvenile by the accused/petitioner to
JJB, still the be Juvenile.
bail was
rejected.
Hence appeal.
7). As both JJB Revisionist / District As pointed and
Mukesh and District & Applicant court decided by the two
Kumar session court upheld lower courts, the
@Bhura has dismissed the ground that the
vs. State the revision of decision crime is heinous and
of U.P Juvenile for of JJB, thus the bail could
(28th bail on ground but High not be granted is not
July, of heinous court a contingent or
2010) crime being reversed sufficient ground for
committed. the rejection of bail
decision application.
of both
the lower
courts
and
struck it
down.
8). Nand Lower The Applicant / No, it As decided by the
Lal & appellate court Appellant upheld lower court and JJB,
Anthr. and JJB, the it came to the
Vs. State dismissed the decision conclusion and the
of UP application of of lower applicant has no
 (11th Juvenility as court and documentary
August, the findings JJB, on evidence to prove
2010) concluded the its his juvenility and the
accused to be findings JJB is correct in its
major. that the findings.
applicant
is major
and not
minor.
9). As session The No, the As, per the
Tajuddin judge and JJB applicant/appell High provisions of the JJ
S/O have refused to ant Court Act, juvenile can be
Mohd. grant the bail have released on bail, but
Yunus to the juvenile upheld in this case, the
vs. State as he has been the applicant was a
of U.P a hardened decision hardened criminal
(5th Sept. criminal from of the from past 10 years,
2000) past 10 years. lower and would expose to
court and hardened criminal if
the JJB, exposed to bail,
and said thereby refusing to
that they grant bail was the
have correct decision by
rightly the two authorities
pronounc and should be
ed the upheld.
decision.
10). Accused/ By the Opposite No over- Based upon the
Rama Opposite part Party No. 2 rulings medical evidence
Kant vs. No. pleaded were and CMO’s report,
State of for the done, as the accused party
M.P And juvenility the was not a juvenile as
Anthr. which was juvenility he was of 19 years
(28th rejected by the question of age at the time of
July, juvenile judge dealt by commencement of
2000). and session the crime.
judge. juvenile
judge
was
accurate.
11). The revision The appellant. Yes, it The grounds of
Dharamb for bail under overruled denial of bail that
ir vs. Section 52 of the the
State of JJ Act was decision accused/appellant
U.P & dismissed by and view would expose to the
Another Session judge of Lower criminality and
 (9th and the JJB, on court and would defeat the
August, the ground that the JJB ends of justice, are
2010) if released on (Juvenile not the sufficient or
bail would Justice reasonable grounds,
expose to Board) as specified by the
harden Act in itself.
criminals Thereafter the
though the decision of both the
applicant was authorities was not
declared as sustained.
juvenile.
CHATTISG 1). S.L The The No, it The court held that,
ARH HIGH Warkare appellant/com complainant/app upheld as per the bare
COURT vs. State plainant has ellant the reading of provision,
of challenged the decision Sec. 52(2)(a) of JJ
Chattisg Judgment of of the Act, 2000, it makes
arh and acquittal JJB. it clear that no
Another passed by the appeal shall lie from
(Decided Principal any order of
on Magistrate, acquittal made by
10.05.20 JJB, acquitting the Board in respect
12) the of a Juvenile and
Respondent therefore, an
No. 2, a acquittal appeal
Juvenile from under proviso to
the charges Sec. 372 of the
under Sec. Cr.P.C against the
302, 392 I.P.C. order of acquittal
whereas the passed by the Board
Board after in respect of a
considering the Juvenile alleged to
evidences lay have committed an
before it, had offence would not
acquitted the be maintainable.
Respondent
No. 2 from the
charges.
2). By this The Yes, the It was held that, the
Shrawan criminal appellant/Revisi decision JJB and trial court,
Bhagat revision onist. of JJB did not consider or
vs. State petition, was bothered to have a
of appellant/revis overruled look on to Sec. 12 of
Chattisg ionist has . the JJ Act which
arh challenged the clearly shows that
(Decided decision of the the legislature has
on JJB & trial used the word
 14.05.20 court, under "shall" in the said
14) Section 52 of section with great
JJ Act, on the stress and with
ground of somewhat
rejection of mandatory force
Bail for the which in other
reason that if words mean
released, the ordinarily
appellant/accu irrespective of the
sed, would nature of offence
expose to the whenever a juvenile
criminal world applies for bail he
and would lead should be released
it to the on bail, and only in
physical or exceptional
psychological circumstances when
danger. Hence there are reasonable
appeal. grounds for
believing that the
release of the
applicant may lead
to defeat the ends of
justice or that the
release of the
juvenile may bring
him into association
with any known
criminal or expose
him to moral,
physical or
psychological
danger, he shall not
be so released. And
thus, the orders of
the JJB & trial court
was set aside.
DELHI 1). Present The .Yes, the Herein, present
HIGH Shashi petition was petitioner/accus decision petition was
Kumar filed by the ed of JJB dismissed by JJB on
COURT
Saini vs. petitioner on was the ground that, if
The the ground of overruled released there was
State refusal of Bail . very likelihood that
(Decided application by he might be exposed
on the JJB & so to the moral or
13.05.20 the decision of psychological
05) JJB was danger. Thus in
 approved by view of Section 12
the Trial court of the JJ Act, the
court allowed the
petition of the
accused.
2). A Revision The Yes, the The court directed
Devesh Petition was Accused/Petitio order of the JJB & trial court
vs. The filed under ner the JJB & to have a look on
State Section 12 of Trial Sec. 12 of the JJB,
(NCT of the JJ Act, on court was which clearly
Delhi). the ground for overruled indicates about the
(Decided rejection of releasing of Juvenile
on Bail as once declared
12.05.20 application by Juvenile, he shall be
06) the JJB & Trial released at once.
Court with a The JJB has wrongly
baseless interpreted the
ground of Section on the
reasoning. ground that the
Hence this released Juvenile
appeal. would come into the
close contact of the
known criminals and
thus, his bail
application was
rejected. Hence, the
petition was
approved by the
court.
3). Nand The petition The Yes, the The court laid and
Kishore was with petitioner/Accus decision explained the
(in JC) respect to the ed of JJB exceptions wherein
vs. State denial of the was which Bail cannot
(Decided Bail overruled be granted (if a
on application by by the reasonable ground
07.07.20 the JJB & trial High appears for
06) court on the Court believing that the
exceptions release is likely to
grounds bring Juvenile into
mentioned in association of
the Bail known criminals, or
provision of if his release is
the JJ Act likely to expose him
to any moral,
physical or
psychological
 danger, or if release
would defeat the
ends of justice), but
in the present case
no exception applies
and thereby the
petition needs to be
allowed.
4). Ruby Appeal was for The appellant No, it did The court concluded
vs. State dismissing the /Accused uphold various points and
(Nct of order or the various options
Delhi) decision of the decision available for the
(14th JJB for of the determination of the
January, concluding the JJB on age through various
2013) accused as account documentary
“not a that it has evidences and tests –
juvenile” by given like Matriculation
verifying the accurate certificate, birth
birth certificate findings. certificate, medical
from the report, ossification
school, as any test, or ration card
other etc. and the accused
documentary appeal was therefore
evidence was dismissed.
unavailable.
5). X The appeal The Direction It concluded that,
minor was made as petitioner/Victi s were Victim/petitioner
Through the JJB was m given to has every right of
Father not furnishing the JJB, claiming the final
Natural the judgment as the judgment copy and
….vs. or the certified findings the certified order
State & copy of the were not copies. And thus the
Others. order as they challenge JJB was directed to
(17th have declared d or make aware of the
April, the accused opposed. final judgment and
2012) responded No. every aspect of the
2 as Juvenile, orders with respect
but did not to the juveniles
specify the punishment and
reasons or the reduction of the
rights or punishment as of a
remedies juvenile. Though the
available to the appeal was set
victim or the disposed off.
petitioner
herein. Is
 petitioner
having any
right to go for
appeal or
revision
against the
order of JJB
for not
availing the
certified copy
of the
impugned
order?
6). Learned The No, it It concluded with
Manish counsel for the Appellant/accus upheld the fact that, the
@Sonu appellant ed through his the accused/appellant
vs. State claimed for counsel. decision failed to produce
of Delhi juvenility on and any documentary
(2nd July, the alleged accuracy evidence like no
2010) date of of the matriculation
incident. The opinion certificate, and no
additional of the birth certificate,
Session judge JJB rather when the
passed on the (Juvenile ossification test was
matter to JJB, Justice conducted his age
where JJB by Board). was determined to
relying upon be 20-21, of which
the ossification according to his
test, determine claim that JJB did
the accused to not grant one year
be Not a margin in age
Juvenile. determination was
Hence this wrong as JJB has
appeal. given one year
margin benefit o the
accused after which
his age was
determined to be 20
years at the alleged
date of incident, and
thus was declare not
to be a Juvenile
under JJ Act, thus,
his petition was
dismissed
accordingly.
 7). Lal The appellant The counsel for Yes, it The court concluded
Mohd. accuse claimed the appellant / overruled by referring to
Vs. The to be a juvenile accused on his the various judicial
State as after the behalf. decision pronouncements
(Govt. of decision of of the given by SC, on
Nct JJB, it JJB, On account of
Delhi), concluded that account determination of
(12th accused is not of the age. It further
May, a juvenile, medical concluded that, as
2009) thereafter it report the accused has
was asked to given by already spend more
reconsider the the than 8 years in
same. The AAIMS. imprisonment and
lower court which is in any case
send the report is greater than the
for testifying quantum of
the age punishment given by
determination, JJB, under JJ Act,
where it and thus the accused
concluded that was released on bail,
the age of and the appeal was
accused is 21 thus disposed off.
years and thus
is not a
juvenile. The
appeal herein
GUWAHAT 1). Sri The petitioner The Yes, it The court reviewed
I HIGH Bapi was alleged for petitioner/Accus overruled the ground of
COURT Adhikari the crime of ed the rejection of Bail by
(AGARTAL S/o Murder under decision the JJB, it further
A BENCH) Radha Sec. 302, of the held that, as per
Ballav I.P.C, wherein, JJB. Section 12 of the JJ
Adhikari his bail Act, there satisfy no
vs. The application grounds for rejection
State of was denied by of the Bail and
Tripura the JJB thereby JJB erred in
(Decided authorities, on rejecting the Bail of
on the ground that the accused, and
30.05.20 it would defeat hence the petition
11) the ends of was allowed.
Justice.
JHARKHA 1). Anuj The petitioner The Yes, the The court directed
ND HIGH Kumar prayed for the petitioner/Accus order/dec the JJB and Trial
COURT Dubey Bail under ed ision of court to have a look
vs. The Section 12 of the JJB & onto Sec. 12 of the
State of the JJ Act, as trial court JJ Act, which
Jharkhan the petitioner was indicates of
d was a Juvenile, overruled releasing a Juvenile
(Decided and the bail by the on Jail, unless any
on was refused by High further case or
16.03.20 the JJB and Court. inquiry has not been
111) session court initiated against the
on the ground Juvenile. thus the
that if released petition was
would expose approved/allowed.
to the criminal
world or to the
moral or
psychological
danger. Hence
this appeal.
2). A criminal The Yes, the The court focused
Dhannan revision petitioner/Accus order/dec and stressed on
jay petition has ed. ision of Section 12 of the JJ
Kumar been filed by JJB was Act for grant of Bail
Mahto the overruled to the Accused,
@ accused/appell . wherein if he does
Dhananj ant under not come under the
ay Section 53 of said exception as
Mahto the JJ Act, for provided by the JJ
vs. The setting aside Act. and thus, the
State of the order of order of the JJB and
Jharkhan JJB and Trial Trail court was set
d. court on the aside on ground of
(Decided ground of improper reasoning.
on rejection of
19.04.20 Bail by the JJB
11) and the Trial
court. Hence
this appeal.
3). A criminal The Yes, the The court focused
Krishna revision petitioner/Accus order/dec and stressed on
Munda petition has ed. ision of Section 12 of the JJ
and been filed by JJB was Act for grant of Bail
Etwa the overruled to the Accused,
Munda accused/appell . wherein if he does
@ Salik ant under not come under the
Munda Section 53 of said exception as
vs. State the JJ Act, for provided by the JJ
of setting aside Act. And only for
Jharkhan the order of the cause that the
d. JJB and Trial petitioner was a
(Decided court on the friend of the co-
on ground of accused did not
30.03.20 rejection of make him equally
11) Bail by the JJB guilty. Thus, the
and the Trial order of the JJB and
court. Hence Trail court was set
this appeal. aside on ground of
improper reasoning.
4). A criminal The Yes, the The court focused
Naresh revision petitioner/Accus order/dec and stressed on
Saw @ petition has ed. ision of Section 12 of the JJ
Naresh been filed by JJB was Act for grant of Bail
Sah vs. the overruled to the Accused,
The accused/appell . wherein if he does
State of ant under not come under the
Jharkhan Section 53 of said exception as
d. the JJ Act, for provided by the JJ
(Decided setting aside Act. And only for
on the order of the cause that the
21.04.20 JJB and Trial petitioner was a
11) court on the friend of the co-
ground of accused did not
rejection of make him equally
Bail by the JJB guilty. Thus, the
and the Trial order of the JJB and
court. Hence Trail court was set
this appeal. aside on ground of
improper reasoning.
And the accused was
released on Bail on
fulfillment of certain
bail bonds.
5). The petitioner The Yes, the The court held that,
Mohd. filed an appeal petitioner/Appel order, as the decision of
Reyajud for granting of lant. decision the JJB was very
din Bail which of the wrong in deciding or
Ansari was duly JJB was rejecting the Bail
@ Reyaj rejected by the overruled application of the
Ansari JJB on the . Juvenile, whereas it
vs. State ground that if completely over-
of released the look the provisions
Jhharkha person would of the JJ Act. Thus,
nd. come into the order of the JJB
(Decided contact with was quashed and the
on bad company. petition was
24.01.20 Thus this allowed.
 12) appeal.
6). Niraj Petitioner was The Yes, the The court overruled
Thakur charged under petitioner/Appel decision the decision of the
@ Niraj Sec. 366 of lant of the JJB, on the ground
Kumar I.P.C, and JJB and that, the court
Thakur being a trial court should have
vs. State Juvenile he was undergone and
of was declined overruled clearly examine the
Jharkhan from Bail and by the accused, his plea
d. his Bail H.C and the provisions of
(Decided application Bail under JJ Act,
on was rejected, both the courts
24.01.20 on the ground committed error in
12) that if released rejection or denial of
would come Bail to the accused,
into the and thus the orders
company of of both the courts,
bad people and stands, quashed, and
thus would the petition was
defeats the end allowed.
of Justice.
ORRISSA 1). The criminal The Yes, the The H.C quashed
HIGH Srikanta revision petitioner/Appel order/dec the impugned orders
COURT Rahana petition was lant ision of of the JJB, on the
vs. State filed by the the JJB ground that they
of petitioner on was were unreasonable
Orissa. ground of overruled and are having
(Decided rejection of by the baseless reasoning
on Bail by the H.C of not filing any
03.08.20 JJB, on the affidavit by the
12). grounds that parents or any
the parents of petition from parents
the appellant for the care and
have not filed custody of the child.
any petition Hence the petition
that, if the was allowed.
appellant is
released on
bail, they
would take
care of him
and prevent
him from
coming into
contact with
any known
 criminal or bad
company.
Hence this
appeal.
PATNA 1). The criminal The Yes, the The court directed
HIGH Ashish revision petitioner/accus order of the JJB to have a
COURT Kumar petition was ed herein. the JJB look upon Section
Bharti @ filed by the was set 12 of the JJ Act, and
Suman accused/petitio aside by the importance of
Kumar ner under Sec. the H.C Sec. 12 with the
Yadav 53 of the JJ effect of JJ Act. and
vs. The Act on the thus the order passed
State of ground of by the JJB was
Bihar. refusal for quashed, and the
(Decided granting bail to petitioner was
on the petitioner allowed.
02.05.20 by the JJB.
13) Hence this
appeal.
2). Bijay The revision The Yes, the As per the wordings
Rai son petition was petitioner/accus order of of counsel for the
of filed by the ed through his JJB & appellant wherein he
Manejar accused/petitio counsel. Trial stated that if the Bail
Rai and ner on the court was is granted to the
Sudarsha ground against overruled adult accused then
n Rai the order of the by the why it cannot be
son of JJB & Trial H.C granted to the
Moti Rai court for not Juvenile, even when
vs. State granting Bail, the Act itself
of Bihar. as the provides for the
(Decided accused/petitio Proviso of Bail in it.
on ner was a Thereby relying
11.03.20 Juvenile under upon the statement
10) JJ Act. Hence of the appellant’s
appeal. counsel, the order of
the JJB was quashed
and the petition was
allowed.
3). A Revision The Yes, the It was held by the
Devendr petition was petitioner/accus decision Court that, as per the
a Kumar filed by the ed through his of the medical report the
son of accused/petitio counsel. JJB and age of the accused
Anand ner on the in was determined to
Mahto ground for furtheran be 18-20 years, and
vs. State declining or ce of it, without any
of Bihar. refusing the the reasonable ground,
(Decided accused from decision the age of the
on called as a of accused as opined
29.03.20 Juvenile Session by the JJB was 20
10). relying upon court was years, which is
the Medial overruled against the
Board which by H.C principles stated inn
was just Rule 12 (3) of the
constituted Juvenile Justice
after nine Rules, 2007. And so
months of the the conclusion
occurrence. reached by the JJB
& Session Judge
was sustained and is
not maintainable.
4). Lal A Revision The Yes, it The court opined
Babu petition was petitioner/accus overruled that the JJB
Kumar filed by the ed herein. the committed error in
@ Alatu accused/petitio decision determining the age
son of ner on the of the of the
Ram ground for JJB on accused/petitioner
Nath Rai declining or the and not following
vs. The refusing the grounds the procedure as
State of accused from mentione prescribed in section
Bihar. called as a d in Rule 12 of the JJ Act. and
(Decided Juvenile 12 (3) of thus the order of the
on relying upon JJ Rules. JJB was set aside
03.03.20 the Medial and the petition was
09) certificates. allowed.
Hence appeal.
5). Revision The Yes, the It was held that, the
Munna petition was petitioner/accus decision Trail court and JJB
Rajwans filed by the ed herein. of the completely overlook
hi son of accused/petitio JJB and the provisions of JJ
Sri ner on the the Act i.e, Sec. 12 of
Bhola ground of session the of the JJ Act,
Rajwans declining of court was which was not
hi vs. bail by the JJB overruled proper and correct.
The and Session by H.C Hence the impugned
State of court. Hence order passed by the
Bihar. this appeal. JJB and Trial court
(Decided was set aside, and
on the revision
05.02.20 application was
10) taken into
consideration and
thus allowed.
 6). The revision The Yes, the As pleaded by the
Pankaj petition was accused/petition decision counsel for the
Kumar filed by the er. of the petitioner, that as
son of accused/petitio JJB and accused/appellant
Kanhaiy ner against the Session was no where
a Verma order/decision Judge connected to the
vs. State of the JJB and was outer world and after
of Bihar. Session judge overruled being successful in
(Decided for not by the running away with
on granting Bail H.C his love he took help
05.02.20 as the of no one outsider,
10) petitioner/accu and hence there is
sed was a no chance of his
Juvenile. mixing with any
known criminal, nor
there is alleged any
other type of
criminal activity of
the petitioner, and
thus his bail
application should
be allowed. Thus the
court quashed the
orders of the JJB &
trial court and
allowed the
application.
7). The The petitioner/ Yes, the As per the
Ranjeet accused/petitio accused. decision contentions laid
Kumar ner has filed a of the down by the counsel
Rai @ revision JJB & for the appellant, it
Ranjeet petition under trial court said that the bail
Kumar Sec. 53 of the was set application was
vs. The JJ Act, on the aside and rejected on the
State of ground of overruled ground that if
Bihar. refusal from by the released the
(Decided granting bail Court. petitioner would
on by the JJB and come into the bad
15.11.20 Session Judge. company or on
11). As though connection with the
being a known criminals.
Juvenile the And thus, the
application of reasons given by the
the concerned JJB are baseless and
Juvenile was thus the petition was
denied. allowed on the
 condition that that
one of the bailor
must be the father of
the petitioner, he
would produce the
petitioner whenever
require by court, and
petitioner will not
indulge in any
further or same
offence, if fail the
bail bond would be
cancelled and the
petitioner (Juvenile)
would be taken into
custody.

PUNJAB & 1). State An application The State of No, it The court held that,
HARYANA of has been filed Punjab. upheld no appeal shall lie
HIGH Punjab by the State of the from any order of
COURT vs. Punjab under Judgment acquittal as against
Rajesh Section 378(3) of the the order of the JJB
alias of Cr.P.C JJB. in respect of a
Tilak praying for Juvenile alleged to
Ram. leave to file an have committed an
(Decided appeal against offence as per
on the Judgment Section 52(2) of the
22.02.20 of acquittal JJ Act, 2000. As of
10) against the course can be
Juvenile by the entertained via suo-
JJB. moto revision under
Section 53 of the JJ
Act. as the court
came to the view
that for the
impugned judgment
that the prosecution
did not show any
interest to lead any
further evidence
despite sufficient
opportunities offered
to it. It further held
that JJB has rightly
concluded the trial
and passed a verdict
 of acquittal and the
HC is satisfied with
its order and thus
upheld the same.
2). The revision The No The court rejected
Mandeep petition was petitioner/accus overrulin the application/
Sharma filed by the ed herein. gs or revision petition on
@ Prince accused/petitio uphelds the ground that as
vs. State ner against the were per Sec. 52(1) of the
of order/decision made in JJ Act, where the
Punjab of the JJB for the petitioner is having
and not declaring instant remedy to file
Another. the accused as case. appeal, against the
(Decided a Juvenile. order passed by JJB,
on Hence appeal. before the Court of
26.11.20 sessions. And thus
13). this remedy of
approaching the HC
is available in the
case if the court of
session upheld the
verdict of the JJB,
and thence the
present revision
petition is not
maintainable.
RAJASTHA 1). Afjal The revision The Yes, it The court concluded
N HIGH Khan vs. petition was petitioner/accus was that, as going by
COURT State of filed by the ed herein. overruled Section 12 of the JJ
(JAIPUR Rajastha petitioner/accu by the Act, the JJB and the
BENCH) n. sed under H.C session court erred
(Decided Section 53 of in refusing and
on the JJ Act declining the Bail
07.01.20 against the application of the
09) decision of the Juvenile as they
JJB and Trail would have
court for not carefully gone
granting Bail through the
to the application under
Juvenile/petiti the purview of
oner. The Bail Section 12 of the JJ
application Act and then would
was rejected have examined the
by the JJB and same. Hence the
Trail court. impugned orders
were quashed given
 by the JJB and the
trial court and the
petition was
allowed.
2). Present The Yes, it The court concluded
Chitarlal revision petitioner/accus overruled that, as going by
s/o petition has ed herein. the Section 12 of the JJ
Radheyl been filed by impugne Act, the JJB and the
al vs. the petitioner d orders session court erred
The against the of JJB in refusing and
State of order of JJB and declining the Bail
Rajastha and session session application of the
n court for court. Juvenile as they
through declining the would have
P.P. bail carefully gone
(Decided application. through the
on Hence this application under
31.01.20 appeal. the purview of
08) Section 12 of the JJ
Act and then would
have examined the
same. Hence the
impugned orders
were quashed given
by the JJB and the
trial court and the
petition was allowed
3). A criminal The Yes, the The reliance of court
Deepak revision accused/petition orders of was emphasized on
vs. State petition has er through his JJB and Section12 of the JJ
of been filed by counsel. Session Act, and thus the
Rajastha the court impugned orders of
n. petitioner/accu were the JJB and the
(Decided sed under dismissed session court were
on Section 53 of stand quashed, and
17.02.20 the JJ Act, the revision petition
10). against the was allowed in
orders of JJB fulfillment of Bonds.
and session
court for
rejecting the
Bail
application of
the
accused/petitio
ner.
 4). The revision The Yes, the The court focused
Gorelal petition was petitioner/accus decision on Section 12 of the
@ Gora filed under ed of the JJ Act and directed
vs. State Section 53 of JJB was the JJB for not
of the JJ Act, on overruled overlooking the said
Rajastha the ground of by the provisions of the JJ
n. rejection of H.C Act and to act
(Decided Bail leniently in the
on application by matter of Bail to the
08.0420 the JJB. Hence Juveniles. Thus the
09). this appeal. impugned order
given by the JJB
was set aside and the
petition was
allowed.
5). The revision The Yes, the The court focused
Harish petition was petitioner/accus decision on Section 12 of the
vs. State filed under ed of the JJ Act and directed
of Section 53 of JJB was the JJB for not
Rajastha the JJ Act, on overruled overlooking the said
n. the ground of by the provisions of the JJ
(Decided rejection of H.C Act and to act
on Bail leniently in the
27.09.20 application by matter of Bail to the
10) the JJB. Hence Juveniles. Thus the
this appeal. impugned order
given by the JJB
was set aside and the
petition was
allowed.
6). The revision The Yes, the The court focused
Kumari petition was petitioner/accus orders of on Section 12 of the
Rekha filed under ed herein the JJB JJ Act and directed
vs. State Section 53 of through his and the JJB for not
of the JJ Act, on counsel. Session overlooking the said
Rajastha the ground of court was provisions of the JJ
n. rejection of dismissed Act and to act
(Decided Bail and leniently in the
on application by overruled matter of Bail to the
28.04.20 the JJB and the . Juveniles. Thus the
10). session court. . impugned order
Hence this given by the JJB
appeal. was set aside and the
petition was
allowed. And after
furnishing the Bail
 bonds the
accused/petitioner
was released.
7). The instant The Yes, the The reliance of court
Mukesh criminal petitioner/appell orders of was emphasized on
vs. The petition was ant the JJJB Section12 of the JJ
State of filed under was Act, and thus the
Rajastha Section 53 of overruled impugned orders of
n. the JJ Act for and the JJB and the
(Decided the rejection of dismissed session court were
on Bail . stand quashed, and
12.01.20 application by the revision petition
09). the JJB and the was allowed in
session court. fulfillment of Bonds.
Thus the
appeal.
8). Raju The instant The Yes, the The reliance of court
vs. State criminal petitioner/appell orders of was emphasized on
of petition was ant the JJJB Section12 of the JJ
Rajastha filed under was Act, and thus the
n. Section 53 of overruled impugned orders of
(Decided the JJ Act for and the JJB stand
on the rejection of dismissed quashed, and the
06.01.20 Bail . revision petition was
09). application by allowed in
the JJB. Thus fulfillment of Bonds.
the appeal.
9). The present The Yes, the The court after
Ritesh criminal petitioner/accus impugne complete analysis of
Sahu vs. revision ed. d orders both the counsel’s
State of petition was were set contentions, laid the
Rajastha filed by the aside and importance of
n. petitioner/accu were section 12 of the JJ
(Decided sed under overruled act, and the
on Section 53 of by the exceptions as laid
17.10.20 the JJ Act, on H.C. down in the JJ Act,
08). the ground that wherein it noticed,
if released the that the ground as
petitioner mentioned by the
would fall into JJB and the said was
the company upheld by the Trial
of bad people. court was not
And on this reasonable and
reliance the would cause
Bail injustice to the
application petitioner. The
 was rejected impugned orders of
by the JJB and both the courts were
the trial court. set aside and
quashed and the
application was
allowed in the terms
and satisfaction of
the Board and after
the fulfillment of
required Bail bonds.
10). The appellant / The No, the The court concluded
Pradhan accused herein accused/Appella court that, as per Sec. 12
Singh vs. was involved nt upheld of the JJ Act, every
State of in the criminal the Juvenile is entitled
Rajastha offence of Sec. directions for Bail, but as the
n 302, I.P.C, and accused was charged
Through whereas, he decision alongwith his father
Public pleaded for of the and some close
Prosecut Bail as he was JJB. relatives there would
or (5th a Juvenile as be no other persons
Oct. per JJ Act, to protect the
2012) whereas, his interest of the
plea was petitioner or to guide
rejected by and keep
both JJB & supervision, while
Trial court on on bail. And thus,
the ground of his petition was
heinous crime. dismissed on various
Hence appeal. grounds.
11). The The Yes, it The learned court
Danaram accused/appell accused/appella overruled briefly examined the
vs. State ant herein nt herein. the accused petition and
of appealed for decision the rejections and
Rajastha bail as he was of the also tells the
n though a Juvenile on JJB. importance of
Public the date of Section 12, as every
Prosecut commencemen Juvenile needs to
or (6th t of the alleged avail a bail and his
Dec. crime. But his bail would not be
2013) bail was refused until unless
rejected by any other serious
both JJB & charge is imposed
trial court. against him in any
Hence this other case or matter
appeal. in issue, and thus the
orders of the JJB &
 Trial court were
quashed and set
aside and the
accused/appellant
herein was granted
bail.
12). The The Yes, it The learned court
Vinod accused/appell accused/appella overruled briefly examined the
vs. State ant herein nt herein. the accused petition and
of appealed for decision the rejections and
Rajastha bail as he was of the also tells the
n a Juvenile on JJB. importance of
Through the date of Section 12, as every
PP (8th commencemen Juvenile needs to
January, t of the alleged avail a bail and his
2014) crime. But his bail would not be
bail was refused until unless
rejected by any other serious
both JJB & charge is imposed
trial court. against him in any
Hence this other case or matter
appeal. in issue, and thus the
orders of the JJB &
Trial court were
quashed and set
aside and the
accused/appellant
herein was granted
bail.
13). The The Yes, it The learned court
Lala@L accused/appell accused/appella overruled briefly examined the
axmi ant herein nt herein. the accused petition and
Narayan appealed for decision the rejections and
vs. State bail as he was of the also tells the
of a Juvenile on JJB. importance of
Rajastha the date of Section 12, as every
n commencemen Juvenile needs to
through t of the alleged avail a bail and his
Public crime. But his bail would not be
Prosecut bail was refused until unless
or (4th rejected by any other serious
February both JJB & charge is imposed
, 2014) trial court. against him in any
Hence this other case or matter
appeal. in issue, and thus the
orders of the JJB &
 Trial court were
quashed and set
aside and the
accused/appellant
herein was granted
bail.
14). The The Yes, it The learned court
Ravit vs. accused/appell accused/appella overruled briefly examined the
State of ant herein nt herein. the accused petition and
Rajastha appealed for decision the rejections and
n bail as he was of the also tells the
Through a Juvenile on JJB. importance of
PP (4th the date of Section 12, as every
February commencemen Juvenile needs to
, 2014). t of the alleged avail a bail and his
crime. But his bail would not be
bail was refused until unless
rejected by any other serious
both JJB & charge is imposed
trial court. against him in any
Hence this other case or matter
appeal. in issue, and thus the
orders of the JJB &
Trial court were
quashed and set
aside and the
accused/appellant
herein was granted
bail.
15). The The Yes, it The learned court
Bhuru accused/appell accused/appella overruled briefly examined the
Bheel ant herein nt herein. the accused petition and
Urf Buru appealed for decision the rejections and
Bheel vs. bail as he was of the also tells the
State of a Juvenile on JJB. importance of
Rajastha the date of Section 12, as every
n commencemen Juvenile needs to
Through t of the alleged avail a bail and his
PP (9th crime. But his bail would not be
January, bail was refused until unless
2014) rejected by any other serious
both JJB & charge is imposed
trial court. against him in any
Hence this other case or matter
appeal. in issue, and thus the
orders of the JJB &
 Trial court were
quashed and set
aside and the
accused/appellant
herein was granted
bail.
16). The revision The Yes, it The court accepted
Pushker petition has accused/Plaintiff overruled the petition
Yadav been filed by through his the providing fulfillment
urf the father. decision of the bail bond and
Shashi accused/appell of JJB by thus granted the bail,
Kumar ant under Sec. granting but the father of the
vs. State 53 of the JJ the bail accused/appellant
of Act, 2000, for applicatio needs to appear
Rajastha bail. But was n. before the court,
n duly rejected whenever called.
Through by the JJB &
PP (25th Trial court,
July, hence this
2012) appeal
17). The revision The Yes, it The court accepted
Room petition has accused/Plaintiff overruled the petition
Singh vs. been filed by through his the providing fulfillment
State of the father. decision of the bail bond and
Rajastha accused/appell of JJB by thus granted the bail,
n ant under Sec. granting but the father of the
Through 53 of the JJ the bail accused/appellant
PP (2nd Act, 2000, for applicatio needs to appear
March, bail. But was n. before the court,
2012) duly rejected whenever called.
by the JJB &
Trial court,
hence this
appeal
18). Sher The revision The Yes, it The court accepted
Singh vs. petition has accused/Plaintiff overruled the petition
State of been filed by through his the providing fulfillment
Rajastha the father. decision of the bail bond and
n accused/appell of JJB by thus granted the bail,
Through ant under Sec. granting but the father of the
PP (18th 53 of the JJ the bail accused/appellant
July, Act, 2000, for applicatio needs to appear
2012) bail. But was n. before the court,
duly rejected whenever called.
by the JJB &
Trial court,
 hence this
appeal
19). The appeal The Yes, it The court directed
Sachin was with appellant/accuse over- the trial court and
vs. State respect to the d ruled the JJB for not looking
of refusal of Bail decision into Section 12 of
Rajastha by the JJB & of the the JJ Act which is a
n Session Judge, JJB. mandatory
Through completely provision, and just
PP (10th overlooking going on by the
August, the mandatory medical report
2010) provision of JJ without looking into
Act. hence this the matriculation
appeal certificate. Thus the
sentence of the JJB
& Trial court was
quashed and the
accused was granted
bail.
20). The The Yes, it The court concluded
Santosh accused/appell appellant/accuse overruled that, just on
alias ant has filed d. the assumption that the
Dholia the petition decision accused if released
vs State under Sec. 12 of the would expose to
of of the JJ Act, JJB. criminal activity and
Rajastha for declining criminal world, an
n or refusals of accused cannot be
Through bail by the JJB refused with his
PP (11th & Trial court, right to access bail,
August, hence this and hence, the
2010) appeal. decision of the Trial
court & JJB was
quashed and the
accused was
released on bail.
21). The The Yes, it The court concluded
Maharaj accused/appell appellant/accuse overruled that, just on
Singh vs. ant has filed d. the assumption that the
State of the petition decision accused if released
Rajastha under Sec. 12 of the would expose to
n (11th of the JJ Act, JJB. criminal activity and
August, for declining criminal world, an
2010) or refusal of accused cannot be
bail by the JJB refused with his
& Trial court, right to access bail,
hence this and hence, the
 appeal. decision of the Trial
court & JJB was
quashed and the
accused was
released on bail.
UTTARAK 1). Fool A criminal The No, the It was held by the
HAND Chandra application has complainant. order of court that, when the
HIGH Chauhan been filed by the JJB school certificate is
COURT vs. State the was relied upon for the
of complainant upheld determination of age
Uttaranc under Sec. 482 by the at the time of
hal & Cr.P.C for H.C incident, the report
another. quashing the of Medical board
(Decided order of JJB in rather C.M.O cannot
on declaring the be taken into
06.07.20 Respondent consideration. And
10). No. 2 as hence upheld the
Juvenile. order of the JJB and
Hence this disposed of the
appeal. application on
devoid merits, on
the ground that the
revision was firstly
maintainable before
the session Judge
under Section 52 of
the JJ Act 2000, and
is maintainable
before the H.C only
under Sec. 53 of the
JJ Act. Mob
2). A criminal The No, the It was held that, JJB
Mobeen revision Revisionist/com order of and session court
Ahmed petition was plainant JJB and has arrived correctly
vs. State filed by the Session to the conclusion of
of petitioner court was determination of age
Uttarakh under Section upheld of the complainant
and. 53 of the JJ by the in placing reliance
(Decided Act on the H.C upon the medical
on ground that board report as the
10.03.20 JJB and school certificates
10) session court were in
did not declare contradictions and
complainant as was showing two
a Juvenile. dates, which due to
Hence this this was creating
 appeal. doubtful situation
and thus the order of
JJB and session
court was upheld by
the H.C and
dismissing the
petition of the
petitioner.
3). A Revision The Yes, the The court came to
Pritam petition was revisionist/accus orders of the conclusion that,
Singh filed by the ed. JJB and JJB and session
(Minor) petitioner session court erred in
vs. State under Section court deciding the
of 53 of the JJ were Juvenility of the
Uttarakh Act, against overruled petitioner, and had
and. the orders of by the completely
(Decided JJB and JJB. overlooked Rule 22
on session court, of the Uttaranchal JJ
05.11.20 on the ground Rules, 2002. And
07). that they did thus did not
not considered followed the
the plea of procedure as laid
Juvenility and down therein. And
declared the thus both the
minor impugned orders
petitioner to be were set aside and
Major. Hence the petition was
this appeal. allowed.
4). The revision The Yes, the It was held that
Shahruk petition has revisionist/accus orders considering the age
S/o been filed by ed. were of the
Raees the overruled Accused/petitioner
vs. State accused/petitio by the and not the
of ner against the H.C seriousness of crime
Uttarakh order of the and as also provided
and. JJB and trial in the provisos of JJ
(Decided court for not Act, the petitioner
on granting him has a right to avail
21.03.20 Bail. Hence the benefit of Bail as
12). the appeal. if not granted it
would cause
injustice to him.
Thus both the
impugned orders are
liable to be set aside
and the revision
 application was
allowed on the said
grounds of Bail and
provisions as per the
JJ Act.
 LEVEL II ANALYSIS
REVIEW / ANALYSIS OF THE APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE
DECISION OF THE JJB’s/TRIAL COURTS TO THE HIGH
COURTS/SUPREME COURT

Serial No:- NAME OF THE NO. OF CASES RELEASED RELEASED

HIGH COURTS ON GROUND ON GROUND
OF ‘BAIL’ OF BEING A
‘MINOR’

1). ALLAHABAD 11 10 1
HIGH COURT
CHATTISGARH 2 1 1
2). HIGH COURT
DELHI HIGH 7 7 0
3). COURT
GUWAHATI 1 1 0
4). HIGH COURT
5). JHARKHAND 6 4 2
HIGH COURT
ORISSA HIGH 1 1 0
6). COURT
PATNA HIGH 6 6 1
COURT
7).
PUNJAB & 2 2 0
8). HARYANA
HIGH COURT
RAJASTHAN 21 21 0
9). HIGH COURT

UTTARAKHAND 4 4 0
10). HIGH COURT

TOTAL 62 57 5
 OBSERVANCE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARDS & HIGH COURTS IN
GRANTING BAIL

SR. NO. NAME OF THE NUMBER OF GRANT OF GRANT OF

HIGH COURT CASES BAIL BY JJB’s BAIL BY
HIGH
COURT’s

1). ALLAHABAD 11 NO YES

HIGH COURT
CHATTISGARH 2 NO YES
2). HIGH COURT
DELHI HIGH 7 NO YES
3). COURT
GUWAHATI 1 NO YES
4). HIGH COURT
5). JHARKHAND 6 NO YES
HIGH COURT
ORISSA HIGH 1 NO YES
6). COURT
PATNA HIGH 6 NO YES
COURT
7).
PUNJAB & 2 NO YES
8). HARYANA
HIGH COURT
RAJASTHAN 21 NO YES
9). HIGH COURT

UTTARAKHAND 4 NO YES
10). HIGH COURT
 GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS

25

20

15

10
MINOR
BAIL