Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Juvenile In Murder Case, Says Allegation Of 'Mercilessly' Causing Death Needs Cautious Approach

The Rajasthan High Court upheld denial of bail to a juvenile charged with the allegations of “brutally” murdering a person along with the co-accused, on grounds of gravity of the offence, his direct involvement and absence of compelling reasons to grant bail.

Underscoring the awareness of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (the “Act”), the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that under provisions of BNSS, the gravity of offence significantly influenced the court's decision to grant or deny bail. It said,

"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...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". 

The court further underscored:

“The principles of justice and the need to uphold the integrity of the investigation and trial proceedings necessitate that the petitioner remain in custody.”

The Court was hearing a revision petition against the order of the Children Court wherein the bail application of the petitioner (juvenile), accused of murder, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention (Section 103(1), 238(A) & 3(5) of BNS) was rejected.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the incident, the gravity of the offence committed could not be ground to decline bail.

On the contrary, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased was brutally murdered by the petitioner along with the co-accused, with multiple injuries found on his body.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the release of a juvenile was preferred unless there existed a belief that such release might associate the juvenile with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological harm, or otherwise such release might frustrate the objective of justice.

The Court opined that even though there was no risk in releasing the juvenile as mentioned above, considering the nature of allegations, releasing him could undermine the interests of justice.

The Court further highlighted that the Juvenile Justice Board, pursuant to its preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act explicitly determined that the petitioner be tried as an adult. It was opined that,

“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.”

In this light, the Court observed that 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.”

Hence, in totality of circumstances, including the gravity of offence, direct involvement of petitioner, and absence of compelling reasons to grant bail, the revision petition was rejected.

Title: Bipul Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246

Click Here To Read/Download Order