Rajasthan HC Refuses Bail to 13-Year-Old Juvenile in Murder Case, Flags Police Failure to Conduct Panchnama

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal revision by a juvenile confined in an observation home, finding a serious lacuna in police conduct and upholding the cognizance order against him.

The Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, has refused to grant bail to a juvenile who was approximately 13 years and 6 months old at the time of the alleged incident. Justice Ravi Chirania (V.J.), sitting singly, dismissed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 750/2026, filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The juvenile, currently confined in the Observation Home, Dausa, is accused under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with FIR No. 182/2022 registered at Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa. The High Court, while declining bail, recorded a pointed finding that the absence of a panchnama of the deceased's body was a serious and apparently intentional lapse by the investigating police.

The FIR, Delayed Lodging, and Route to the High Court

The FIR at the centre of this matter was lodged on 15 June 2022 in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 12 May 2022 — a delay of over one month. After investigation, the police did not find sufficient material against the juvenile or co-accused persons and submitted a final report.

The complainant, described as the father of the deceased, subsequently filed a protest petition on 22 August 2022. The competent court took cognizance against the juvenile vide order dated 7 October 2024 after examining the material available on record. Arrest followed on the basis of that cognizance order.

The juvenile's bail application was then rejected by the Special Judge, Juvenile Court (Sessions Judge), District Dausa, by order dated 10 April 2026. The present criminal revision petition was preferred thereafter before the Rajasthan High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Mr. Chandra Shekhar, counsel for the juvenile-petitioner, pressed three principal points. First, the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than one month from the date of the alleged incident. Second, at the relevant time, the complainant himself — the father of the deceased — had submitted a hand-written letter to the concerned SHO expressing no grievance against any person and declining to press for a post-mortem. As a result, no post-mortem was conducted and no immediate action was taken. Third, the presence of the juvenile at the site of the alleged incident is seriously disputed. Counsel argued that the FIR was an afterthought, no post-mortem report exists, and there was no reason to implicate the petitioner. On these grounds, bail was sought.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amit Punia, and counsel for the complainant, Mr. Abhishek Parashar, opposed the application. They submitted that the conduct of the petitioner and his family members, as narrated in the FIR itself, discloses serious involvement in the incident. A more specific allegation was that the petitioner and his family members manipulated the investigation and prevented the post-mortem from being conducted. The funeral, according to the complainant's side, was conducted hastily at night.

The complainant's counsel also pointed out that the police did not conduct a fair investigation when the matter was later reported to them, and that no panchnama of the body of the deceased was prepared before the body was handed over. The cognizance order dated 7 October 2024 was relied upon, where the court had noted that the involvement of the juvenile in the alleged offences “cannot be ruled out.”

The Court's Reasoning: Police Lapses and Cognizance Order

Justice Chirania examined both the arguments and the cognizance order of October 2024. On the question of post-mortem, the court acknowledged that the complainant may have refused it at the relevant time by submitting the hand-written letter. However, the court drew a distinction between the complainant's refusal and the duty of the police officer present at the hospital.

The court found that it was the duty of the police officer present at the hospital to prepare a panchnama of the body before handing it over for the funeral. That step was not taken. The court recorded that this constitutes a serious lacuna on the part of the police and that the lacuna “appears to be intentional” in the conduct of the investigation.

This finding cuts against the petitioner's argument that the absence of a post-mortem and panchnama alone should operate in his favour. The court treated the investigative failure as something that could not be laid at the door of the prosecution's case against the juvenile — rather, it was a failure of the police's own independent duty.

The court then turned to the cognizance order dated 7 October 2024. Having perused it, the court noted that the trial court had discussed the material on record before taking cognizance and had found that the involvement of the petitioner could not be ruled out.

Taking the overall facts and circumstances together, including the disputed questions of presence, the manner in which the body was handled, and the findings in the cognizance order, the court concluded it was not inclined to enlarge the juvenile on bail at this stage.

Outcome

The criminal revision petition was dismissed. The juvenile remains confined in the Observation Home, Dausa. The Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Dausa's order dated 10 April 2026 rejecting bail accordingly stands.