Gujarat HC bails teenager in Rs 26.86 lakh mephedrone case, says Surat courts misread the chargesheet
Justice S.V. Pinto held that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children Court treated the drugs as recovered from the boy when the FIR and chargesheet said nothing was found on him, and that none of the three bars to bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act was made out.
The Juvenile Justice Board in Surat refused bail to a boy accused in a 268.6-gram mephedrone case on the footing that the drugs, worth ₹26,86,000, had been recovered from his possession. The FIR and the chargesheet said no such thing: the contraband came out of the hands of two adult men stopped by the Detection of Crime Branch, and nothing was found on the child at all. On 23 October 2026 the Gujarat High Court set aside the Board's order and the Children Court order that confirmed it, and directed that the boy, who was 17 years and seven months old at the time of the alleged offence, be released on bail to his parents.
Justice S.V. Pinto, sitting singly, allowed a criminal revision application filed by the boy's father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The child is referred to in the order only as a child in conflict with law, and this report follows that practice.
Two men stopped at Madhav Chowk, and a boy named during interrogation
The prosecution case, as summarised in the order from the police papers, began on 24 February 2025. Acting on secret information, the DCB police laid a watch near Madhav Chowk in Katargam, Surat, and intercepted two men, Bharatbharthi Amrutbharthi Goswami and Sharifkhan Hajikhan Nayak. A search allegedly turned up 268.600 grams of mephedrone, with a market value of ₹26,86,000, along with mobile phones and a laptop. An FIR was registered at the DCB police station, Surat, at 11.55 pm that night under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The child entered the story through interrogation. The police version was that he had studied up to Class 12, had worked in a mobile shop in 2024, and there came into contact with Goswami and another man engaged in the illegal liquor trade. He was also said to have come into contact with an absconding accused, Ashok Bisnoi, who dealt in mephedrone. According to the prosecution, Bisnoi asked the boy to find someone to carry contraband for ₹1,00,000, with ₹50,000 as the boy's commission; the boy passed the offer to Goswami; and in February 2025 Bisnoi handed the drugs to the boy, who handed them on to Goswami. The boy and Bisnoi were shown as absconding in the FIR.
The boy was apprehended on 11 April 2026. The DCB completed its investigation and filed a chargesheet before the Juvenile Justice Board, Surat, registered as Juvenile Case No. 245 of 2026.
Refused twice below, on the strength of gravity and a recovery that was not there
The father, as natural guardian, applied for bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act. The Principal Magistrate of the Board rejected the application on 2 July 2026. The Board's paragraph 5, reproduced in the High Court's order, gave its reasons: the offences were serious and non-bailable with heavy punishment; an earlier bail application had been rejected by the predecessor judge on 11 May 2026 and this one was filed after the chargesheet; mephedrone weighing 268.600 grams, a commercial quantity worth ₹26,86,000, had been recovered from the juvenile's possession; if released he might re-offend, re-establish contact with adult criminals to complete unfinished transactions, tamper with evidence or continue the trade; and the case therefore fell within the exceptions to Section 12.
The father appealed to the Special Judge (Children Court), Surat, in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 1045 of 2026. On 14 July 2026 the Special Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Board's order. The revision to the High Court followed.
What the father and the State argued
Senior Advocate Asim Pandya, assisted by Jaimin A. Mehta, argued for the father that there was no substantive material connecting the child to the offence. No mephedrone or other contraband had been recovered from his person or premises. The case rested on statements of co-accused recorded by the police, which by themselves cannot be substantive incriminating evidence. There was no call detail record, no financial transaction, no documentary or electronic material tying him to the deal. The boy was pursuing a B.A. degree and detention was damaging his education. The JJ Act is reformative, he submitted, and a child cannot be kept in custody merely because the alleged offence is serious. Section 12 mandates release unless one of the three circumstances in the proviso to Section 12(1) is made out, and none was: there was no material that release would bring the boy into association with a known criminal, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
Mr Pandya also dealt with the investigating officer's statement that the boy figured in two other cases. In one, an FIR of 2026 at Falna police station in Pali district, Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur had granted him bail on 25 June 2026. In the other, registered at Tharad police station, he had not been arrested at all. The father, he said, was ready to take responsibility for the boy's supervision, education and conduct and to comply with any condition the court imposed.
Additional Public Prosecutor C.M. Shah opposed bail. The investigation papers, she submitted, prima facie disclosed the boy's involvement: the contraband recovered from accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been obtained from accused No. 3 and the child, and the child had been constantly in telephone contact with the accused, with call detail records on record. She pointed to the Tharad case of 2025 and the Falna FIR of 2026. She also told the court that the Board had conducted the preliminary assessment under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act, concluded that the child needed to be tried as an adult, and on 7 September 2026 ordered the trial transferred to the Children's Court. Given the gravity of the allegations and the material on record, she said, no discretion should be exercised in his favour.
Section 12 is a different test, and the Board did not apply it
Justice Pinto began with what the record actually showed. The case against the child, at this stage, rested primarily on the material collected during investigation, including co-accused statements. It was not in dispute that no mephedrone or other contraband had been recovered from his person or physical possession. The prosecution had pointed to no independent documentary or electronic material, such as financial transactions, that would prima facie establish a direct link between the child and the drugs taken from accused Nos. 1 and 2.
The judge said she had taken the quantity, 268.600 grams, into account. But a bail application by a child in conflict with law is governed by the specific statutory scheme of Section 12 of the JJ Act, which she set out in full. Under Section 12(1), a person apparently a juvenile who is arrested or detained for a bailable or non-bailable offence shall, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or in the care of a fit institution or person. The proviso withholds release only where there appear reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to “bring him into association with any known criminal”, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. That scheme, the judge said, is “materially different from the general provisions governing bail”, and the court's task is to examine whether any of the three circumstances is made out.
Neither court below had done that. Both had relied mainly on the chargesheet papers and the investigating officer's affidavit, and had concluded from the grievousness of the offence that bail should be refused. Neither the Board nor the Children Court had called for the report of the District Child Protection Officer of Pali, Rajasthan. The High Court itself examined that report, produced by the APP along with the report of N.T. Deshani, Police Sub-Inspector of the DCB police station, Surat.
The judge then dealt with the finding at the heart of the Board's order. The Board had stated, as the prosecution version, that the mephedrone had been recovered from the juvenile's possession, and the Children Court had confirmed the order on the same aspects. But the FIR and the chargesheet papers state that no contraband was found in the child's possession. The findings of both courts, Justice Pinto held, were “contrary to the evidence in the charge sheet papers”.
A repentant child, a completed investigation and a father willing to answer for him
The District Child Protection Officer's report, the judge recorded, described the child as repentant and regularly undergoing counselling, and said the parents had made him understand the consequences of such acts and undertaken to provide a proper environment and ensure he took interest in his studies.
Walking through the proviso, the judge found nothing specific to show that, if released on bail into his parents' care and kept away from any notorious group, the child was likely to associate with a known criminal. There was no specific material that release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. And nothing had been pointed out to show that release on appropriate conditions, including an undertaking or bond by the parent, would defeat the ends of justice.
The role attributed to him mattered too. The specific allegation was that he took the contraband and passed it to another accused, yet nothing was found on him. The court was not required, at the bail stage, to appreciate the evidence or record findings on merits, but the nature of the alleged role was a relevant circumstance under the special scheme of the JJ Act. So was the fact that the investigation was over and the chargesheet filed; the submission that no further recovery or discovery was needed from the child had not been controverted by the APP.
The child was about 17 years and seven months old at the relevant time. The JJ Act, the judge said, requires courts to adopt a child-friendly approach directed at care, protection, rehabilitation and social reintegration. He was in the first year of a B.A. degree, and continued detention could harm his education and overall development. Taking his age, the role attributed to him, the completion of the investigation and, above all, the absence of any specific material attracting the proviso, the court held that he deserved to be released on bail and extended the benefit of Section 12.
Before passing the order, the judge turned to Rule 11(6) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, and Form 8 appended to them, which prescribe the undertaking or bond to be executed by a parent, guardian or fit person in whose care a child in conflict with law is placed. The form makes that person responsible for the child's good behaviour and well-being, and binds them not to change residence without informing the Board, not to remove the child from its jurisdiction without permission, to ensure the child attends school or an approved vocation, to produce the child before the Board when directed and to assist the probation officer.
Order
The revision application was allowed. The Children Court order of 14 July 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2026 and the Juvenile Justice Board order of 2 July 2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9903 of 2026 were quashed and set aside. The child is to be released on bail in C.R. No. 11210015250041 of 2025 of the DCB police station, Surat City, on the father executing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the same amount before the Juvenile Justice Board, Surat, to the Board's satisfaction.
Nine conditions were attached. Both parents must execute a Form 8 undertaking before the Board. The child is to remain under his parents' care, attend his educational activities regularly and stay clear of any activity that brings him into conflict with law; the parents must cooperate with the probation officer. Neither the child nor his family or friends may try to influence the complainant or any witness. The father must furnish the child's residential address to the Board and report any change. The child must appear before the Special Judge (Children Court), Surat, when directed, and must not leave the jurisdiction without that court's permission until the inquiry concludes. The Board may add, modify or delete conditions in the child's best interest.
The child is to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits, Rule was made absolute to that extent, direct service was permitted, and the Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Juvenile Justice Board, Surat, at once.