The Supreme Court has held that a second revision petition for bail by a juvenile is maintainable if filed under changed circumstances, such as the completion of an investigation or prolonged detention. The Court set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court which had dismissed a juvenile’s plea on the ground that it was a second revision based on no new grounds.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the order dated September 17, 2025, passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1297/2025. The High Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant—a juvenile in conflict with law—affirming the rejection of his bail application under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
The legal trajectory of the case began when the appellant’s initial bail plea was rejected on the grounds that his release “might expose him into association with bad company.” An appeal under Section 101 of the JJ Act against this rejection was dismissed on February 13, 2025, followed by the dismissal of a revision petition under Section 102 on April 22, 2025.
However, after the investigation concluded, the appellant applied afresh for grant of bail. This subsequent application was rejected on June 24, 2025, and the corresponding appeal was dismissed on July 14, 2025. Consequently, the appellant approached the High Court via a revision petition, which the High Court dismissed as not maintainable, treating it as a second revision on identical grounds.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi critically examined the High Court’s rationale. The Bench observed that the High Court “committed an error in holding that the subject revision being a second revision is not maintainable.”
The Court outlined three distinct reasons for this conclusion:
- Distinct Cause of Action: The Court noted that the first revision arose from the rejection of a bail prayer filed while the investigation was pending, whereas the current petition was filed after the investigation had concluded.
- No Embargo on Second Bail: The Bench clarified that there is no legal bar on filing a second bail application. The Court observed, “No doubt, a second bail prayer may have to be considered on new grounds. But, in the context of bail, period of detention may, in circumstances, constitute a fresh ground.” The Court emphasized that this is particularly relevant “in the context of a Juvenile where bail is the rule and denial of it is an exception.”
- Changed Circumstances: The Court highlighted that at the time of the second application, the investigation was complete, and a co-accused, who was also a juvenile, had already been admitted to bail.
Decision on Merits
Proceeding to decide the bail prayer on its merits, the Supreme Court relied on the social investigation report placed on record. The Court noted that the report considered the rehabilitation of the juvenile in his family as appropriate. Furthermore, the report did not disclose any criminal antecedents among the appellant’s family members or suggest that his release would lead to an association with bad company.
The Bench remarked:
“In such circumstances, in our view, the High Court ought to have granted bail to the appellant taking into consideration the mandate of Section 12 of the JJ Act.”
Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated September 17, 2025. The Court ordered that the appellant “be released on bail without surety.”
Additionally, to ensure the juvenile’s continued welfare, the Court directed the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board to issue appropriate directions to the Probation Officer “to keep the juvenile under supervision and to submit periodical reports to the Board about his conduct.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Juvenile In Conflict With Law AA vs. State of Rajasthan
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18636/2025]
- Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Ashima Gupta, Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Mr. Chandan Kashyap, Ms. Harshita Raj, Mr. Monu Kumar, Mr. Ayush Anand (AOR)
- Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Sansriti Pathak (A.A.G.), Ms. Shagufa Khan, Mr. Aman Prasad, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal (AOR)
