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

The informant lodged Dariyapur P.S. Case No. 457 of 2024 under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the petitioner and other accused persons assaulted her husband during a dispute concerning allegations of witchcraft.

The petitioner allegedly inflicted a sword blow on the victim’s stomach, and the victim subsequently died after being taken to hospital.

The petitioner was arrested on 12 February 2025 and claimed juvenility.

The Juvenile Justice Board determined that he was aged 15 years, 3 months and 21 days on the date of the offence and declared him a child in conflict with law (“CICL”).

His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 24 June 2025, and his appeal was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, on 2 September 2025.

He thereafter filed the present criminal revision.

Whether the petitioner, having been declared 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 court erred in rejecting bail without recording legally sufficient reasons under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, under which a CICL is ordinarily entitled to bail irrespective of the nature or gravity of the alleged offence, unless release is likely to bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court also applied Section 3 of the JJ Act, particularly the principles of the best interests of the child, institutionalisation as a measure of last resort, and repatriation and restoration of the child to the family unless contrary to the child’s best interests.

Under Section 74 of the JJ Act, disclosure of the identity of a CICL is prohibited; accordingly, the petitioner’s identity was anonymised as “X1” in the cause title.

The Court held that Section 12 creates a statutory presumption in favour of releasing a CICL on bail, and that denial is permissible only when one or more of the specified statutory grounds are established.

On examination of the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report, the Court found no material indicating that the petitioner would associate with known criminals, that he lacked guardianship, that his family members had criminal antecedents, or that restoration to his family would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.

The Court further emphasised that the JJ Act is reformative and child-oriented, and that institutional custody is a measure of last resort.

Since the subordinate courts had rejected bail without establishing any of the grounds contemplated by Section 12, their orders were held to be legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra, or the concerned court.

One surety was required to be a parent, while the other was to be a relative without criminal antecedents who would undertake the petitioner’s care and upkeep.

The petitioner was also directed to remain present before the Board on every date fixed in the case.