Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bipul Kumar Alias Vipul vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:30969) on 15 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:30969]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 681/2025
Bipul Kumar Alias Vipul S/o Shri Akhilesh Ram, Aged About 18
Years, R/o Narayanpur Post Purnadih, Narayanpur Obra,
Aurangabad, Bihar. Presently Residing At Majdoor Ram Ram Saa
Woolen Millon, Karni Industrial Area, District Bikaner (Raj.).
(Lodged In Observation Home, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S. Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
REPORTABLE 15/07/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (juvenile) as well as
learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State.
The allegation against the petitioner is of offence under
Section 103(1), 238(A) & 3(5) of BNS. The bail application filed by
the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS has been rejected by the
learned Judge, Children Court, Bikaner vide order dated
02.04.2025. Being aggrieved of the order dated 02.04.2025
passed by the Court below, the petitioner has preferred this
revision petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
petitioner was below 18 years of age at the time of incident. He
has been falsely involved in the case without any material
(Downloaded on 16/07/2025 at 09:51:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30969] (2 of 6) [CRLR-681/2025]
evidence. It is argued that learned Court below has not
appreciated the fact that the petitioner is juvenile and entitled to
get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2015. The petitioner is in
custody since long time and no further detention of the petitioner
is required for any purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot
be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. It is also argued that
nothing adverse has been brought on record in the report of the
Probation officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Juvenile in
conflict with law vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9566/2024) dated
14/08/2024, CCL A Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020
DHC 3061, Child in Conflict with law vs. State of Gujarat reported
in 2022 GUJHC 19582 and X Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in
2024 (261) AIC 883.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defended the
impugned order passed by the court below in declining the bail to
the petitioner. It is contended that this is a case where the
petitioner juvenile alongwith co-accused Govind Kumar brutally
murdered one Pappu Sah. Multiple injuries were found on the
body of the deceased. This shows the intention of the accused
amounting to culpable homicide.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of
the Act of 2015.
Referring to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, counsel for the petitioner has
(Downloaded on 16/07/2025 at 09:51:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30969] (3 of 6) [CRLR-681/2025]
contended that the release of a juvenile on bail is the presumptive
rule, with detention being an exception. It is relevant to mention
that under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), the gravity of the offence significantly
influences the court’s decision to grant or deny bail. However, this
factor cannot be singularly determinative in cases involving
juveniles, as the law mandates a nuanced approach that considers
other pertinent factors.
The statutory framework emphasizes that the release of a
juvenile is generally preferred, unless there exists a substantial
belief that such release could result in the juvenile associating
with known criminals, or expose him to moral, physical, or
psychological harm, or otherwise frustrate the objectives of
justice. This approach aligns with the rehabilitative and protective
ethos underpinning juvenile justice legislation.
Upon evaluation of the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the Court observes that the juvenile
does not appear to be at risk of association with known offenders
or exposure to moral, physical, or psychological dangers.
Nevertheless, considering the nature of the allegations, namely,
that the juvenile is accused of heinous offences involving mental
depravity under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
the Court is persuaded that releasing him on bail at this juncture
could undermine the interests of justice.
This Court finds support in precedents such as the decision of
the co-ordinate Bench in Vishal @ Ritik v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1520/2017, decided on
23.01.2018), as well as this Court’s judgment in Rahul Solanki v.
(Downloaded on 16/07/2025 at 09:51:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30969] (4 of 6) [CRLR-681/2025]
State of Rajasthan, reported in 2020(3) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 839. These
rulings reinforce that while the release of juveniles is generally
favored, circumstances that threaten the juvenile’s safety or the
interests of justice warrant caution.
The gravity of the offence, specifically, the allegation of
mercilessly causing the death of another person, necessitates a
cautious approach. The court below and the Juvenile Justice
Board, have objectively and pragmatically evaluated the
circumstances, ensuring that justice is served without
compromising the juvenile’s future prospects or the societal
interest. This Court finds no illegality or procedural irregularity in
the orders passed by the lower courts that would warrant
revisional interference.
So far as the cases cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are concerned, it is pertinent to consider the relevant
judgments in context. In the case of Juvenile in Conflict with Law
v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (Criminal Appeal arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9566/2024) dated 14.08.2024,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court explicitly emphasized the significance
of the psychological assessment report of the juvenile. The Court
noted that the report categorically stated that the juvenile did not
belong to the “high-risk category”, which played a crucial role in
the Court’s assessment of the juvenile’s suitability for trial as an
adult or as a juvenile. Ïn the present case, the Juvenile Justice
Board, Bikaner, pursuant to its preliminary assessment under
Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, by order dated 17.03.2025, has explicitly determined
that the applicant be tried as an adult. This indicates a departure
(Downloaded on 16/07/2025 at 09:51:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30969] (5 of 6) [CRLR-681/2025]
from the considerations in the aforementioned Supreme Court
judgment, where the psychological profile was a decisive factor.
Furthermore, in the case of Child in Conflict with Law Vs.
State of NCT Delhi (Supra), the coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court observed that the primary role attributed to the
juvenile was mere presence at the scene, with no evidence of
active participation in the attack or recovery of incriminating
articles. The court emphasized that the allegations against him
lacked specific involvement in the commission of the heinous
crime, thereby rendering the case unsuitable for trial as an adult
or for imposing stringent measures. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court, in the Child in Conflict with Law Vs. State of Gujarat
(Supra) case, while granting bail, noted that the case against the
juvenile was primarily based on the statement of co-accused, who
had made a confession to a third party not produced as a witness
during the trial. The court observed that the ingredients of Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code were not prima facie established,
as the details of how and when the conspiracy was hatched were
not disclosed by the prosecution. This underscores the importance
of substantive and credible evidence before attributing criminal
conspiracy, especially in cases involving minors. In the case of X v.
State of Uttarakhand (Supra), the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court
examined allegations concerning a consensual relationship and
rape involving a 15-year-old victim. The Court emphasized that
the core issue revolved around the nature of consent and the age
of the victim, which are crucial in such cases. Conversely, in the
present matter, the allegation pertains to murder, with specific and
direct accusations against the petitioner. Having considered the
(Downloaded on 16/07/2025 at 09:51:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30969] (6 of 6) [CRLR-681/2025]
above judgments and the factual matrix of the present case, it is
apparent that the allegations against the petitioner are serious
and involve direct participation in a heinous crime. The case
against the petitioner is supported by specific and substantive
evidence, unlike the cases cited where the evidence was either
circumstantial, based on confessions not corroborated by
witnesses, or involved mere presence at the scene.
In light of the totality of circumstances, especially the gravity
of the offence, the direct involvement of the petitioner, and the
absence of compelling reasons to grant bail, this Court is not
inclined to favor the petitioner with bail at this stage. The
principles of justice and the need to uphold the integrity of the
investigation and trial proceedings necessitate that the petitioner
remain in custody.
In view thereof, the revision petition fails and same is hereby
dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh
revision petition upon receipt of the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL) report, should there be substantive grounds warranting
reconsideration.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
22-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 16/07/2025 at 09:51:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)