Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 387
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 16883 OF 2025)
JUVENILE DELINQUENT … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated
20.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
(hereinafter, ‘High Court’ ) in Criminal Revision No. 1491/2024
whereby the Revision against rejection of Appellant’s bail application
was dismissed
Signature Not Verified
3. The High Court, in the order impugned, has observed as thus -
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.04.18
14:33:39 IST
Reason:
“8. Having gone through the record, this Court finds that
since the age of revisionist is above 16 years and below 18
years and case heinous in nature (sic), his trial is going on
1
as an adult, therefore, in view of the legal position
applicable to the present case, in case of conviction of the
revisionist, he can be sentenced for more than three years
except life or death. In case, the revisionist is released on
ball, there is a strong possibility of his being in danger
morally, physically or psychologically and he may again get
(sic) involved in criminal activities. In the matter of bail of
juvenile, the Court has to see literally through a prism
having three angles, i.e. firstly, the angle of welfare and
betterment of the child itself, secondly, the demands of
justice to the victim and her family and thirdly, the concerns
of society at large. Under the facts and circumstances of the
case, in case revisionist is released on bail, then his release
would defeat the ends of justice. Further, it is a double
murder case and Rs. 27,500/ (rupees twenty seven
thousand five hundred) has also been recovered from the
possession of the revisionist at the time of his arrest.
Weapon of assault Basuli has also been recovered on the
pointing out of the revisionist.
9. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned
Courts below are not erroneous and cannot be said to be
unsustainable. The aforesaid impugned orders are not
liable to be interfered with, which are wholly impeccable.”
4. It is to be noted here that in the present case, the Appellant was
declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra (hereinafter,
‘JJB’ ) , vide order dated 23.06.2023. Relevant portion of the order
reads as follows –
“After the above investigation, it is found that the child has
passed class 10. According to the educational records filed
by his guardian, his date of birth is recorded as 12.07.2005.
The child has passed high school in the year 2021 from
Shrimati Shanti Devi Inter College Gangaura Fatehabad
Agra. The date of birth of the child is recorded as
12.07.2005 in the forms of the said school. The date of birth
of the child is recorded as 12.07.2005 in the tabulation
2
register of the high school. The date of birth of the child is
also recorded as 12.07.2005 in the TC issued by the former
school Hazari Lai Parashar Memorial Junior High School
Pinahat Agra.
Thus, on the basis of whatever forms have been filed by the
juvenile and other forms available on the file, the date of
birth of the applicant/juvenile is proved to be 12.07.2005.
The date of incident in the case is 02.07.2022. Thus, on
the date of the incident, the age of the juvenile is
found to be 16 years 11 months 21 days, which is less
than 18 years. Accordingly, accepting the
application, the juvenile is eligible to be declared a
juvenile delinquent who violated the law on the date
of the incident.
Order
In the present case, the child is declared a juvenile
delinquent in violation of law on the date of the
incident.
A copy of the order should be sent to Superintendent,
Government Communication Home, Juvenile Agra /
Superintendent, District Jail, Agra.”
5. Thereafter, the Appellant, through his father, filed a bail
application before the JJB and sought release which was refused vide
order dated 04.07.2023 with following observations –
“The applicant juvenile has been declared a juvenile
delinquent on 23.06.2023.
According to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act 2015, before releasing any
juvenile on bail, it has to be seen whether he is likely to
associate with any known criminal or face any moral,
physical or psychological danger by releasing him on bail or
whether releasing that person would defeat the purpose of
justice. The report of the District Probation Officer is
attached in the case.
3
In the present case, from the observation of the District
Probation Officer's report and the documents, it is clear that
the juvenile needs moral, social and practical knowledge.
From the observation of the available documents, it is
clear that if the juvenile is released on bail, he will
come into the company of a known criminal and this
will put him in moral, physical and psychological
danger, due to which the purpose of justice will fail.
Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the application for bail
deserves to be cancelled. ”
6. Aggrieved by the refusal of bail, the Appellant preferred an
appeal before the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Agra
(hereinafter, ‘the Appellate Court’ ) , which was dismissed vide order
dated 01.02.2024. The Appellate Court took into account the nature
of the offence and the manner of commission of the offence and
observed that it was "extremely disgusting, heinous and gruesome." It
further held that enlarging the Appellant on bail would defeat the
objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 (hereinafter, ‘JJ Act’ ) , as it would expose him to the
company of criminal persons. The Appellant then preferred a
Criminal Revision before the High Court, which came to be dismissed
by the impugned order.
7. Having regard to the fact that the Appellant was declared as a
juvenile, the question that arises for consideration is the extent to
which the observations made by the Trial Court, Appellate Court and
4
the High Court, while rejecting his bail application, can be sustained.
To our utter dismay, when the matter first came up for consideration
on 15.10.2025, a bare perusal of the record revealed that, despite
being declared a juvenile, the Appellant had remained lodged in a
regular jail for more than two and a half years. As such, while issuing
notice, this Court also called upon the State to furnish an
explanation in this regard. Thereafter, in the order dated 28.11.2025
of the present proceedings, after perusal of the affidavit filed by the
State, the explanation offered was found to be far from satisfactory.
This Court thought it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to
the State to clarify why after declaring the Appellant as juvenile, he
was still kept in a regular jail. On the same date, this Court directed
to release the Appellant on bail.
8. Apropos the previous orders, on the next date i.e., 15.12.2025,
explanation and the report of Presiding Officer of the JJB through
Registrar General of the High Court (hereinafter, ‘Registrar
General’ ) was received. On the said date, this Court observed as
thus:
“1. In furtherance to the previous orders, response has been
received from the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad along with the report of the present Member,
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The communication received
from the Central Jail, Agra is attached indicating the fact
5
that on the date of entry in the jail, the age of the delinquent
was 21 years. It is informed that the order passed by JJB
was communicated to the Superintendent of Central Jail for
taking further action. On the other side, the State authorities
have informed that the order was not received by them and
prayer for shifting was not made by the accused, therefore,
he continued in the Central Jail.
2. Since the issue involved in the present case is that the
person who has been declared as juvenile by the JJB, how
can he be allowed to be kept into the regular custody. From
the explanation filed by the State as well as the Member,
JJB, it is not clearly clarified indicating that who is at fault.
Therefore, fresh explanation is required from the Member,
JJB, it includes the Member who was holding the position
on the date of declaration. In the said explanation, it be
specified how and in what manner the order
declaring him juvenile was communicated to the
authorities.
3. The authorities are required to explain that after receiving
the order, what action they have taken for transferring such
person into observation home.
4. Let a fresh explanation be submitted by the Members,
JJB and the State authorities clarifying the aforesaid
position. The Registrar General of the High Court and
the State authorities are at liberty to specify that
what procedure are being observed in the State of
Uttar Pradesh to transfer a delinquent after declaring
him as juvenile in the matter of shifting him from the
jail to observation home or vice-versa.
5. List on 30.01.2026.”
9. Vide order dated 30.01.2026, this Court directed to join the
Registrar General as party to the proceedings and issued notice
through e-mail. The report of the Registrar General, as received
apropos the previous order, was directed to be supplied to learned
counsels for both the parties for better assistance. On the next date
6
i.e., 27.02.2026, the Report of the Registrar General was perused,
which, inter-alia , contended that the requisite rule-making power in
the matter of transfer of an offender from regular jail to observation
home after being declared juvenile, is vested in the State Government
as per Section 10(2) of the JJ Act. Upon perusal, we were of the view
that the report of the Registrar General was based on improper
understanding of law. Therefore, on 27.02.2026, following directions
were issued -
“1) Mr. Ravi Raghnath, learned counsel, appears on behalf
of the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
2) Mr. Pradeep Misra, learned counsel, appears for the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
3) It is a matter in which despite declaration of petitioner as
juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) vide order
dated 23.06.2023, he was kept into regular jail and pretext
of non-communication has been put forth. However, vide
order dated 28.11.2025, this Court directed to release the
petitioner on bail.
4) It is a matter of concern that for more than 2 years and 5
months, as a juvenile was kept in regular jail until directed
to be released by this Court.
5) The response received from the Registrar General
referring to Section 10(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is based on
complete non application of mind. Therefore, in such
compelling situation, we have joined the High Court through
Registrar General as a party in this case.
6) Today, except tendering an apology, nothing has
been brought on record to understand as to what
steps have been taken by the High Court to strengthen
7
the system in the matter of communication of orders
passed by the JJB consisting of one judicial officer.
Procedure in vogue has not been brought on record,
indicating the manner how communication of the orders is
to be made with the jail authorities. Simultaneously, it is
also unfortunate to say that in an inquiry regarding
juvenility of a person who is in conflict with law is
pending in JJB, the officers of the JJB/ police
attending the proceedings are so insensitive to not
indicate why he could not enquire about the order of
a competent Court regarding a juvenile and are filing
response of not receiving the order from the Court.
7) It is also a matter of concern for this Court that how and
in what manner, the order of rejection of bail has been
passed, including by the High Court.
8) In any case, we deem it appropriate to offer an
opportunity in the matter to the stakeholders. They
can do the needful within three weeks.
9) In the absence of placing of relevant material by the
stakeholders, appropriate orders including payment of
compensation may be directed.
10) This order be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of
the High Court, Chief Secretary of the State, Law Secretary
of the State and the Director General (Prisons) of the State
of Uttar Pradesh.
11) List on 23rd March, 2026.”
10. When the matter was listed on 23.03.2026, the Registrar
General produced a Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter,
‘SOP’ ) addressing the issue of transfer of declared juveniles from
regular jails to observation homes, which was taken on record.
Thereafter, we sought response from the State as to how far they are
in a position to accept the terms of SOP and if they wish to suggest
8
some additional measures, needful may be done. Present is a case
where a juvenile has been wrongfully put in regular jail meant for
adult prisoners, even after declaring him juvenile, because of lack of
communication, insensitivity and inhumane approach on the part of
the officials. In this light, and being guided by the mandate of Article
21 of the Constitution of India, we also sought response from the
State vis-a-vis compensation in lieu of the Constitutional Tort
committed against the Appellant. On this, it was submitted that State
is ready to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the Appellant.
11. The learned counsel for the State has today submitted before us
that the compensation amount has been deposited in accordance
with the previous order in the bank account and an affidavit has also
been filed in this regard. Learned counsel representing the State
further submitted that they are in agreement with the SOP prepared
by the High Court and they shall vigorously follow such SOP in future
while dealing with the situation like the one in the present case in
the matter of juvenile. We take the said statement on record and
acknowledge the steps taken after the orders passed by this Court.
12. Reverting to the impugned order, as well as the order of the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court, we find that the bail of the Appellant
9
was primarily refused by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on
the ground that he requires moral, social and practical counselling
as indicated by District Probation Officer (hereinafter, ‘DPO’ ) vide his
report dated 28.06.2023. Moreover, the nature of the offence also
weighed in the mind of the Courts. Nonetheless, we are constrained
to observe that both the Courts failed to take note of the material fact
that, despite having been declared a juvenile, the Appellant was
lodged in a regular jail. This is particularly disquieting as the report
of the DPO does not indicate that his trial ought to be conducted as
that of an adult. Such an approach indicates a lack of sensitivity and
want of awareness on the part of the stakeholders.
13. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the High Court is
concerned, it appears that the learned Judge was swayed by the fact
that the age of the Appellant is above 16 years and below 18 years
and the offence is of heinous nature. Moreover, his trial is going on
as an adult wherein he can be sentenced for more than 3 years except
life or death. In this context, High Court observed that if the Appellant
is released on bail, he can again get involved in criminal activities.
14. It is to be noted that much like the Trial Court and Appellate
Court, the High Court also failed to take note of the fact that the
10
Appellant was lodged in a regular jail. Moreover, we are also of the
view that the observation that the Appellant’s trial is going on as an
adult since his age is above 16 years and below 18 years is incorrect
on the face of it, as discussed in succeeding paragraphs.
15. Law relating to trial of a juvenile as an adult is governed by
Section 15, 18 and 19 of the JJ Act. Relevant portions of the said
provisions are reproduced for ready reference as thus –
“ 15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by
Board.—(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to
have been committed by a child, who has completed
or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall
conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his
mental and physical capacity to commit such offence,
ability to understand the consequences of the offence
and the circumstances in which he allegedly
committed the offence, and may pass an order in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of
section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may
take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-
social workers or other experts.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is
clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to
assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand
the consequences of the alleged offence.
(2) ………….
*
18. Orders regarding child found to be in conflict with
law.— (1) ………….
(2) ………….
(3) Where the Board after preliminary assessment under
section 15 pass an order that there is a need for trial of the
11
said child as an adult, then the Board may order transfer of
the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having
jurisdiction to try such offences.
*
19. Powers of Children’s Court.— (1) After the receipt of
preliminary assessment from the Board under section 15,
the Children’s Court may decide that –
(i) there is a need for trial of the child as an adult
as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and pass appropriate
orders after trial subject to the provisions of this
section and section 21, considering the special
needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and
maintaining a child friendly atmosphere;
(ii) there is no need for trial of the child as an adult and
may conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with the provisions of section 18.
(2) The Children’s Court shall ensure that the final order,
with regard to a child in conflict with law, shall include an
individual care plan for the rehabilitation of child, including
follow up by the probation officer or the District Child
Protection Unit or a social worker.
(3) The Children’s Court shall ensure that the child
who is found to be in conflict with law is sent to a
place of safety till he attains the age of twenty-one
years and thereafter, the person shall be transferred
to a jail:
Provided that the reformative services including
educational services, skill development, alternative
therapy such as counselling, behaviour modification
therapy, and psychiatric support shall be provided to
the child during the period of his stay in the place of
safety.
(4) The Children’s Court shall ensure that there is a periodic
follow up report every year by the probation officer or the
District Child Protection Unit or a social worker, as required,
to evaluate the progress of the child in the place of safety
and to ensure that there is no ill-treatment to the child in
any form.
12
(5) The reports under sub-section (4) shall be forwarded to
the Children’s Court for record and follow up, as may be
required.
16. As evinced from the statutory scheme, where a child above 16
years but below 18 years is alleged to have committed a heinous
offence, the determination of whether such child is to be tried as an
adult is two-tiered. First, the JJB is mandated under Section 15(1) to
conduct a preliminary assessment, which is not a trial but a capacity
centered inquiry, focusing on the child’s mental and physical ability
to commit the offence, the extent of understanding of its
consequences, and the other circumstances relating to its
commission. For this purpose, the JJB may seek assistance from
psychologists or other experts. After such assessment, if the JJB is
of the opinion that the matter is of such nature that warrants trial as
an adult, it may pass an order under Section 18(3) transferring the
case to the Children’s Court. Second , the Children’s Court, after
receiving the preliminary assessment from the JJB , independently
evaluates the case under Section 19 and may either affirm the need
for trial of the child as an adult in accordance with the Code of
Criminal Procedure, or, if it finds otherwise, proceed to conduct an
inquiry as a JJB and pass appropriate rehabilitative orders under
Section 18.
13
17. For the purpose of examining the justifiability of the orders
passed by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court, and the High Court
in relation to the grant of bail to the juvenile, at the outset, it is
necessary to consider the report of the DPO dated 27.06.2023. A
perusal of the said report, which comprises 49 columns, reveals that
none of the columns contain any adverse remark qua the Appellant.
The report indicates that the Appellant was not involved in any drug
trafficking, gambling, or similar activities. He was found to be
religious in nature, inclined towards reading, and maintaining
friendships with people of similar age. His behavior was reported to
be normal, and there was no indication of parental or familial neglect.
The relevant portion of the report is reproduced as thus –
“ RESULT OF INVESTIGATION
1. Emotional Reasons: None at present
2. Physical Condition: Normal
3. Intelligence: Normal as per statement
4. Social and Economic Reasons:
Social Status: General *
Economic Condition: Poor *
5. Suggested Causes of Problems: Lack of positive
atmosphere in the family
6. Analysis of Factors Contributing to the Causes of Crime:
Being an adolescent
7. Opinion of the Experts Consulted: Positive improvement
of the adolescent is possible in a reformative family
environment
14
8. Recommendation Regarding Rehabilitation by Probation
Officer / Child Protection / Welfare Officer / Social Worker:
Mixed information has been received from the
neighbourhood regarding the above juvenile. The juvenile
has been accused of heinous crimes like robbery and
murder. Sir, providing the juvenile with a positive family
environment proper counselling on a fortnightly basis can
improve the juvenile's understanding and behaviour.”
18. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn in the report does
not justify the continued detention of the Child in Conflict with Law
(hereinafter, ‘CCL’ ) . In fact, the DPO observed that if the juvenile was
kept in a positive family environment with proper and periodic
counselling, it would improve his understanding and behavior.
Despite this, the JJB refused bail on the apprehension that the
Appellant may come into the company of known criminals and can
be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger . We find
ourselves unable to accept such reasoning, particularly in light of the
DPO’s report, which does not warrant such a conclusion.
19. In the Appeal, the Appellate Court, merely relied upon the
nature of the offence, describing it as ‘extremely disgusting, heinous
and gruesome.’ Nonetheless, such an observation was germane only
if such conclusion was arrived at by the JJB at the stage of
preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, prior to
passing an order under Section 18(3) . In our considered view, the
Appellate Court has thus failed to take into account the intent and
15
object of the provisions of the JJ Act. It is undisputed that the
Appellant was between 16 and 18 years of age and had been declared
a juvenile, albeit, in connection with a heinous offence. Moreover,
there was no observation by the JJB or in the report of the DPO to
the effect that Appellant’s trial be done as an adult. Once so declared,
he was required to be treated strictly as a CCL . Thereafter, it was
incumbent upon the JJB and the Courts to proceed in accordance
with the statutory framework either by releasing him on bail or
probation of good conduct , handing him over to the care of his
parents or guardians, placing him under the supervision of a fit
facility, or, where necessary, sending him to a special home or place
of safety with appropriate reformative measures such as counselling,
behavioural therapy, and psychological support. Only in a situation
where the CCL’s conduct is such that it would not be in his interest
or that of other children, could the JJB consider sending him to other
place of safety. The discretion vested under Section 18(2) is to be
exercised in furtherance of reformative and rehabilitative objectives.
Further, where, upon preliminary assessment under Section 15, it is
found that the child ought to be tried as an adult, the matter is to be
transferred to the Children’s Court in accordance with Section 18(3).
16
In absence thereof, the ordinary statutory framework applicable to
juveniles must prevail.
20. In a case where the JJB has declined to declare the child as a
juvenile and the matter thereafter comes before the Children’s Court
under Section 18 read with Section 19 of the JJ Act, the said Court
is first required to determine on its own whether the child should be
tried as an adult . Such determination must be made while keeping
in mind the mandate of Section 21 i.e., what orders may not be
passed if the juvenile is declared CCL. It should be done while
acknowledging the child’s special needs, the principles of fair trial,
and the requirement of maintaining a child-friendly atmosphere. In
case the Court finds that trial of the juvenile as an adult is not
required, it is open to the Children’s Court to conduct an inquiry as
a Board and pass appropriate orders in terms of Section 18. The
scheme of the JJ Act, thus, envisages a comprehensive and robust
procedure to ensure that the rights of the child are not thwarted at
any stage.
21. On perusal of the record of the present case, we do not find any
order of the JJB or any designated Children’s Court to the effect that
there was a need for trial of the Appellant as an adult. In absence
17
thereof, we are of the firm view that the observations as made by the
High Court is wholly unwarranted and cannot be countenanced with
the spirit and object of the JJ Act. Once the Appellant stood declared
a juvenile, the course adopted by the High Court is based on
surmises and conjectures, which cannot be sustained in law. In this
view of the matter, we set aside the order of the High Court also.
22. Before parting, we would like to observe that cases like the
present one reflect a serious and systemic lack of coordination and
sensitivity amongst all the stakeholders entrusted with the
administration of juvenile justice framework. The statutory mandate
of the JJ Act is not merely procedural but also advances the
guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as expressed
in its clause of object and reasons. Therefore, prompt and humane
treatment of CCL is required to be undertaken in light of the
objectives of the act. As such, any lapse in ensuring immediate
transfer of a declared juvenile to an observation home from regular
jail not only defeats the object of the legislation but also results in a
serious infraction of the Juvenile’s right to life. Therefore, we impress
upon all the concerned authorities and the stakeholders to
institutionalize robust mechanisms so that such instances do not
recur in future.
18
23. This Court sincerely hopes that the concerned learned Judge of
the High Court as well as the Judicial Officers presiding the JJB will
exercise extreme care in future while dealing with the matters of
juveniles. For purpose of ensuring this, let this order be placed before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, and upon approval, be
further communicated to the concerned Judge and the Judicial
Officers through the Registrar General.
24. Having regard to the seriousness of the issue involved, we deem
it appropriate to direct the Registry of this Court that a copy of this
order, along with the SOP prepared by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, be forwarded to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts
for their kind perusal and appropriate action. The Chief Justices of
all the High Courts may examine the same and, if no such
mechanism has already been implemented in their respective
jurisdictions, take suitable measures to ensure effective
implementation of the statutory mandate under the JJ Act,
particularly with regard to prompt communication of orders declaring
a person as juvenile and immediate transfer of juveniles lodged in
regular jail to observation homes upon such declaration.
19
25. Being cognizant of the fact that the implementation of such
SOPs ultimately rests with the concerned State Governments, it is
also directed that a copy of this order along with the SOP be also
transmitted to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union
Territories of India for appropriate action.
26. The Registry shall also circulate a copy of this order to the
Directors of all Judicial Academies across the country, for purpose of
sensitizing and apprising the judicial officers in this regard.
27. With the aforesaid observations, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….…………….…………J.
(ATUL S. CHANDURKAR)
New Delhi;
April 06, 2026.
20