Rajasthan High Court denies bail to 13-yr old murder accused, flags lapse in police probe

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has declined to grant bail to a juvenile accused of murder and criminal conspiracy, holding that a serious and apparently intentional lacuna on the part of the police in not conducting a panchnama of the deceased’s body did not, by itself, entitle him to release at this stage.

Justice Ravi Chirania, dismissing a criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against an order of the Special Judge, Juvenile Court (Sessions Judge), Dausa, rejecting the juvenile’s earlier appeal, held that the police lapse, though serious, could not outweigh a cognizance order which had already found that the juvenile’s involvement in the offence could not be ruled out.

The Court observed:

“This Court, considering the various facts from the record, noted that though the complainant may have refused for post-mortem at the relevant time by submitting a hand-written letter, but it was the duty of the police officer who was present at that time in the hospital to conduct the Panchnama, who did not conduct the same while handing over the body to the complainant and other family members for performing the funeral. There is a serious lacuna on the part of police which appears to be intentional in conducting the investigation in the case.”

The petitioner, who was 13 years and six months old at the time of the incident and is presently confined in an observation home, is proceeded against in connection with FIR registered in Dausa district, for offences under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. His criminal appeal had earlier been rejected by the Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Dausa, in Apr 2026, following which he approached the High Court in revision.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Chandra Shekhar submitted that the FIR, though relatable to an incident in May 2022, had been lodged more than a month later. It was submitted that at the relevant time the complainant, father of the deceased, had himself submitted a hand-written letter to the concerned Station House Officer stating that he had no grievance against any person and did not wish to pursue any legal proceeding, including a post-mortem, as a result of which no post-mortem was conducted and no action taken. Counsel submitted that the police, upon investigation, did not find a case against the petitioner and filed a final report, and that it was only pursuant to a protest petition filed on Aug 22, 2022 that cognizance came to be taken by the competent court on Oct 7, 2024, on the strength of which the petitioner was arrested. It was further contended that the petitioner’s presence at the scene was seriously disputed and that there was no reason for the family to be implicated, warranting bail.

The Public Prosecutor, along with counsel for the complainant, Abhishek Parashar, opposed the bail plea, submitting that the conduct of the petitioner and his family members, as narrated in the FIR, itself demonstrated their serious involvement in the incident. It was contended that the family had manipulated the investigation and did not allow the post-mortem to be conducted, and that the funeral was carried out late at night in haste. Counsel for the complainant pointed out that no panchnama of the deceased’s body had been prepared and that it was handed over without due procedure, and further submitted that the cognizance order dated Oct 7, 2024 had already considered all these aspects before taking cognizance against the petitioner.

Having perused the cognizance order and considered the overall facts and circumstances along with the issues raised, the Court held that it was not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail at this stage, and dismissed the criminal revision petition.

Title: Conflict with Law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 750/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23595]

Counsel for petitioner: Chandra Shekhar

Counsel for respondent: Amit Punia, PP; Abhishek Parashar (for complainant)