Vansh Santosh Ambhore vs State Of Maharashtra

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This revision application filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2015 Act” for short), challenges the order dated 25.06.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.298/2026, by which the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Nagpur on 20.05.2026 denying bail to the applicant in Crime No.171/2026 dated 16.04.2026 registered with the non-applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 103[1], 109, 189[2], 190, 191[2], 191[3], 61[2] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, was confirmed.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a minor aged 17 years, and the allegations against him are of pelting stones, however, there is no active participation, as he has not inflicted blows on the deceased. It is submitted that considering the role played by the applicant, and the report of the Social Investigation, wherein it is stated that the applicant can be released on bail, upon giving an undertaking by his parents that they will send the applicant for further education to Amravati. It is also submitted that no purpose would be served by keeping him in the Observation Home.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the revision by submitting that the offence is of serious nature and the applicant is of understandable age i.e. more than 17 years. It is submitted that though the Social Investigation report suggests about release of the applicant on the basis of an undertaking to be given by his parents, however, the fact remains that the applicant had indulged in serious crime, and therefore, he may not be released on bail.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the impugned orders. Though the impugned orders suggest that there is need for giving regular counselling to the applicant, however, the Social Investigation Report suggests that he can be released on bail on an undertaking by his parents that they will sent the applicant to Amravati to live with his maternal uncle. It appears from the record that an application under Section 12 of the 2015 Act was preferred by the applicant for grant of bail, however, the said application was rejected on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature, as it is committed in a brutal manner, moreover prima facie it appears that it was a permeditated murder. It is further observed that considering the safety and security, it will not be proper to release the applicant on bail. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by order dated 25.06.2026 on the ground that there is no error in the order, and that the applicant is in need of regular counselling.

It is not in dispute that the applicant is a child in conflict in law. If further appears that so far as the role of the applicant is concerned, in the entire episode he has pelted one stone on the informant. It is further to be noted that the main allegations are against accused no.1 Piyush. Though the offence is serious in nature, however, considering the fact that the applicant has played a very limited role of pelting stone and the fact that the applicant is aged 17 years, coupled with the opinion in the Social Investigation Report that he may be released on bail on undertaking of his parents, further custody of applicant in Observation Home would not be necessary. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.

Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of.