The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a juvenile in conflict with law, granting him default bail while observing serious discrepancies and potential fabrication of judicial records by the lower court to deny the statutory right of the petitioner.
Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the single bench, set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court, directing the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate action regarding the conduct of the judicial officer. The Court observed that the records appeared to have been manipulated to show that the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period of 90 days, whereas the chronological evidence suggested otherwise.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a juvenile, was apprehended on August 28, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 193/2025 registered at Police Station Luni, Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Upon the expiry of the mandatory 90-day period for investigation, the petitioner moved an application for default bail under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application on November 29, 2025, claiming that the charge sheet had been filed on November 21, 2025, i.e., within the stipulated period. This rejection was upheld by the Special Judge, POCSO Cases No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in an appeal decided on December 17, 2025.
The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that no charge sheet was filed within the statutory period and that there were material discrepancies in the court records.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Farjand Ali conducted a meticulous chronological examination of the lower court’s proceedings and unearthed several “glaring and patent wrongdoings.”
1. Non-existence of Order Sheet on Date of Alleged Filing The Court noted that while the Magistrate claimed the charge sheet was filed on November 21, 2025, there was no contemporaneous judicial order sheet from that date recording such filing. The only evidence was an endorsement on the reverse of the charge sheet made by the Presiding Officer himself, not by the office clerk, which the High Court found suspicious.
2. Chronological Impossibility in Order Sheet dated 24.11.2025 The Court flagged an order sheet dated November 24, 2025, which recorded that a bail application had been rejected. However, the record showed that the bail application was only presented on November 28, 2025, and rejected on November 29, 2025.
The Court observed: “A judicial order cannot precede the very event which gives rise to it… To describe such incorporation of a non-existent and future judicial act as a ‘typographical error’ is, prima facie, wholly untenable.”
3. Contradictory Proceedings On November 28, 2025, the Magistrate directed the Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary. The High Court reasoned that if the charge sheet had indeed been filed on November 21, there would be no occasion to call for the case diary a week later.
4. The “Explanation” by the Lower Court When the High Court sought an explanation, the lower court termed the entries as clerical mistakes. Rejecting this, Justice Ali stated: “The explanation offered does not inspire confidence… It appears to be a case of fabrication of false document prepared only with a view to justify the stand taken.”
Legal Principles Cited
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra (2001), reiterating that the right to default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS is indefeasible once the statutory period lapses.
Regarding the strictures against the judicial officer, the Court cited Krishna Prasad Verma (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. State of Bihar (2019) and Kaushal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2025), acknowledging the need for restraint in criticizing judicial officers. However, the Court clarified that “Judicial restraint cannot be stretched to the extent of shutting one’s eyes to glaring and patent wrongdoing… The matter does not rest in the realm of judicial error; rather, they bear the imprint of culpability.”
Merits of the Case
On the merits, the Court noted that the prosecutrix, in her statement, had specifically named the co-accused Rakesh but had not attributed any role to the petitioner-juvenile.
Decision
The High Court quashed the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety of the like amount.
Concluding the judgment, Justice Farjand Ali directed: “The Registry is directed to place the matter, along with this order sheet, before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for kind perusal and consideration to take such further action as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to preserve the purity of the judicial process.”
