Disposed¶42

Sri. Sachin Kumar R. @ Sachin v. State by Sanjaynagar Police

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025CRL.P/14176/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Mohammad Nawaz, J.), CRL.P No. 14176 of 2025, NC: 2025:KHC:51432, decided 05-12-2025: claim of juvenility under Section 9(2) JJ Act 2015 raisable before any Court at any stage notwithstanding Section 94/JJ Board exclusivity; Sessions Judge to conduct age enquiry (Birth Certificate) before deciding bail under S.439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS; murder case IPC 302 r/w 34 (S.C.1032/2024); Rishipal Singh Solanki (2022) 8 SCC 602 relied on; disposed with liberty for fresh bail petition, 30-day timeline, contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, who shall conduct an enquiry into the petitioner's juvenility and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 30 days of filing; all contentions kept open. ¶42

Sri. Sachin Kumar R. @ Sachin Vs State by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim of juvenility of the petitioner (who contends he was a child/minor at the time of commission of the offence, relying on documents such as a Birth Certificate) could be entertained by the Sessions Court while considering bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., or falls exclusively within the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The observations of the learned Sessions Judge that the claim of juvenility falls within the exclusive provisions of the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 94 of the Act, 2015 and that a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot entertain disputed questions of age, may not be proper, since Section 9(2) of the Act, 2015 states that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, shall be recognised at any stage, and shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner relies on documents such as a Birth Certificate to claim that he was a child at the time of commission of the offence and that contention was raised before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have conducted an enquiry and then proceeded with the matter in accordance with law.

¶35

Key takeaways

The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition seeking bail before the learned Sessions Judge; on such filing, the learned Sessions Judge shall, after conducting an enquiry regarding the juvenility of the petitioner, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible not later than 30 days from the date of filing of the petition; all contentions are kept open.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. / Section 483 BNSS - Offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC (S.C.1032/2024, LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) - Successive bail petition on twin grounds of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest and juvenility - Sessions Judge, by order dated 29.09.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.7990/2025, held the claim of juvenility fell within the exclusive provisions of the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 94, JJ Act, 2015, and declined to entertain disputed questions of age - Held: Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 permits the claim of juvenility to be raised before any Court and recognised at any stage, so the Sessions Judge's observation may not be proper; where the accused relies on documents such as a Birth Certificate, the Sessions Judge ought to have conducted an enquiry - Reliance placed on Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2022) 8 SCC 602 - Petition disposed of permitting a fresh bail petition; Sessions Judge to enquire into juvenility and pass appropriate orders within 30 days - All contentions kept open (NC: 2025:KHC:51432).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:51432 CRL.P No. 14176 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14176 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SACHIN KUMAR R. @ SACHIN S/O RAMALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, 2ND CROSS, OPP TO MOHAN TENT HOUSE, NAGASHETTYHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 094

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.S. GAURAV, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE BY SANJAYNAGAR POLICE, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA) PIN CODE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N, ADDL. SPP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ORDER THAT THE PETITIONER TO BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN FIR IN CR.NO.85/2024 REGISTERED BY

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51432 CRL.P No. 14176 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SANJAY NAGAR POLICE REGISTERED IN 8TH ADDL. CMM COURT AT BANGALORE FOR OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W 34 OF IPC NOW THE CASE IS COMMITTED AND PENDING BEFORE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGLAURU (CCH-70) AS S.C.1032/2024.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶21

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This successive bail petition is preferred on twin grounds, namely, the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused and secondly, the accused was a minor at

¶25

the time of commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.09.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.7990/2025, rejected both the contentions of the petitioner.

¶26

At paragraph No.13 of the order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the claim of juvenility falls within the exclusive provisions of the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'Act, 2015')and

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:51432 CRL.P No. 14176 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 of

¶31

Cr.P.C. cannot, entertain disputed questions of age.

¶32

The above observations made by the learned Sessions Judge may not be proper in view of Section 9(2) of the Act, 2015, wherein Section 9(2) states that, the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court and shall be recognised at any stage and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act.

¶33

The petitioner is relying on certain documents

¶34

such as Birth Certificate etc., to claim that he was a child at the time of commission of the offence. When the said contention was raised before the Sessions Court, the

¶35

learned Sessions Judge ought to have conducted an enquiry and then proceeded with the matter, in accordance with law. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishipal Singh

¶36

Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51432 CRL.P No. 14176 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

in (2022) 8 SCC 602 (para Nos.33.1 to 33.11) relied on by the learned Addl. SPP.

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition seeking bail before the learned Sessions Judge and in that event, the learned Sessions Judge after conducting an enquiry regarding the juvenality of the petitioner shall pass an appropriate order

¶41

in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible not later than 30 days from the date of filing of the petition.

¶42

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶43

All contentions are kept open.

¶44

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

PSJ