A child in conflict with law cannot be denied bail absent Section 12 statutory exceptions.

The informant lodged Sonepur P.S. Case No. 804 of 2024 under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that his son left home on 25 September 2024 after receiving a telephone call, subsequently became untraceable, and was later found dead near a river. During investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced in the confessional statements of co-accused persons, following which Sections 103(1), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the BNS were added

The petitioner was arrested on 30 September 2024 and claimed juvenility. The Juvenile Justice Board determined that he was aged 16 years, 7 months and 21 days on the date of the alleged offence and declared him a child in conflict with law (“CICL”). The Board rejected his bail application on 19 May 2025, and the Children’s Court dismissed his appeal on 20 August 2025

The petitioner thereafter filed the present revision, contending that his implication was based only on the confessional statements of co-accused persons, that no specific role or incriminating recovery was attributed to him, and that the statutory conditions for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) were absent

Whether the petitioner, being a CICL, could be denied bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act in the absence of material showing that his release would bring him into contact with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate Children’s Court erred in rejecting bail without adequately applying the child-friendly and rehabilitative principles under Section 3 of the JJ Act

Whether the identity of the CICL was required to be anonymised in the cause title and online publication under Section 74 of the JJ Act

Section 12 of the JJ Act establishes bail as the rule for a CICL and permits refusal only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice

Section 3 of the JJ Act requires decisions concerning children to be guided by the child’s best interests and development of full potential; institutional care is to be used only as a measure of last resort, and the child is entitled to restoration and reintegration with the family unless contrary to the child’s best interests

The Court also applied Section 74 of the JJ Act, which prohibits disclosure of the identity of a child in conflict with law, directing that the petitioner be referred to as “X1” in the cause title and online records

The Court held that the seriousness of the alleged offence, by itself, was insufficient to deny bail to a CICL because Section 12 requires consideration of the specific statutory grounds for refusal

On examining the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report, the Court found no material demonstrating that the petitioner would associate with known criminals, face moral, physical or psychological danger, or lack parental guardianship

The petitioner’s father was willing to supervise and care for him, and the record did not establish that release would defeat the ends of justice

Applying the rehabilitative, child-friendly and non-institutional principles under Section 3, the Court concluded that continued institutional custody was inconsistent with the statutory preference for family-based care and rehabilitation

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Children’s Court judgment dated 20 August 2025 and the Juvenile Justice Board’s order dated 19 May 2025

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, subject to the conditions that one bailor be a parent, the other be a relative without criminal antecedents who undertakes proper care and upkeep of the petitioner, and that the petitioner appear before the Board on every date fixed in the case

The Court further directed that the petitioner’s identity continue to be protected by referring to him as “X1” in the cause title and online records.