Raj HC grants default bail to juvenile, recommends inquiry over suspected ante-dating of charge-sheet proceedings

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a juvenile in conflict with law was entitled to statutory default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), after finding prima facie that the charge-sheet had not been filed within the prescribed 90-day period. The Court further directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of an appropriate inquiry into suspected irregularities in the judicial record.

The order was passed by Justice Farjand Ali in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2026, V (Minor) through Natural Guardian X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr., pronounced on February 17, 2026.

The revision petition was filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Cases No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which had affirmed the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 29.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 rejecting the plea for default bail.

The case arose out of FIR No. 193/2025 registered at Police Station Luni, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 308(2) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 and 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner, aged about 17 years and 8 months, was apprehended on 28.08.2025 and remained in custody at the Child Welfare Home.

It was contended that 90 days from the date of detention expired on 21.11.2025, and that no valid charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated period. Although the prosecution asserted that the charge-sheet was filed on 21.11.2025, the High Court noted the absence of any contemporaneous order-sheet recording such filing. The only material relied upon was an endorsement dated 21.11.2025 on the reverse of the charge-sheet cover page, bearing the handwriting of the Presiding Officer.

The Court examined the chronological record in detail and found serious inconsistencies. An order-sheet dated 24.11.2025 recorded rejection of a bail application and extension of custody till 05.12.2025, though the bail application was admittedly presented only on 28.11.2025 and dismissed on 29.11.2025. The Court observed that a judicial order cannot precede the event giving rise to it and described the chronology as incongruous.

Further, on 28.11.2025, the Magistrate had directed that the case diary be called from the police station, which, according to the High Court, was inconsistent with the assertion that the charge-sheet had already been filed on 21.11.2025.

The High Court also noted that in replies submitted to its specific queries dated 30.01.2026 and 04.02.2026, there was no reference to the alleged order-sheet dated 24.11.2025, thereby reinforcing the apprehension that the said order-sheet may not have been in existence at the relevant time.

On merits, the Court referred to Section 187(3) BNSS and reiterated that the right to default bail upon expiry of the statutory period is indefeasible, relying on the principle laid down in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State of Maharashtra. The Court held that once the statutory period lapses and the accused expresses readiness to furnish bail, the Court has no discretion to prolong detention.

Additionally, the Court observed that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded on oath on 09.01.2026, did not attribute any role to the present petitioner and named only the co-accused Rakesh. The absence of any allegation against the juvenile was held to be a significant factor while considering bail.

The Court held that the continued detention of the juvenile, despite accrual of the statutory right under Section 187(3) BNSS and the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, violated the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2025 of the Special Judge, POCSO Cases and the orders dated 29.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board were quashed and set aside. The juvenile was directed to be released forthwith upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Board.

While clarifying that no final finding was being recorded against the concerned judicial officer, the Court observed that the material on record prima facie raised serious concerns regarding the authenticity of the order-sheets and endorsements. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration of such further action as may be warranted to preserve the purity of the judicial process.

Case Title
V (Minor) through Natural Guardian X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order
17/02/2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Singh; Mr. Rajpal Singh Rathore
For the respondents: Ms. Manju Choudhary; Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.; Mr. SriRam Choudhary, AGA

Judgments Relied Upon
Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453; Krishna Prasad Verma (D) thr. L.Rs. vs State of Bihar (2019) 10 SCC 640; Ayub Khan vs State of Rajasthan; Kaushal Singh vs State of Rajasthan; Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer; Sonu Agnihotri vs Chandra Shekhar; among others as discussed in the order.