A child in conflict with law is entitled to bail unless Section 12 exceptions apply.

The applicant, a child in conflict with law, was accused of participating with three others in stopping the deceased and other persons, looting a mobile phone and ₹4,500, and stabbing the deceased, who died from his injuries. The applicant faced charges under Sections 341, 394, 397, 302 and 201 of the IPC.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application, and the Children’s Court affirmed that decision. He challenged those orders in revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”). He had been in the Observation Home since 25 June 2024 and had since attained adulthood. A similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged offences.

Whether the orders rejecting bail warranted interference in revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act.

Section 12 of the JJ Act provides for the release on bail of a child alleged to be in conflict with law, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, unless reasonable grounds exist to believe that 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.

Section 102 empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of proceedings before the competent authorities or courts under the Act to assess the legality or propriety of their orders.

Applying Section 12, the Court considered the Social Investigation Report and case diary, which disclosed no prior criminal antecedents and indicated that the applicant’s conduct in the Observation Home had been good.

It also considered his period in custody, his age, and the bail granted to a similarly situated co-accused. On the record before it, the Court found no reasonable grounds to conclude that release would create any of the risks specified in Section 12 or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

It directed the applicant’s release from the Observation Home into his parents’ custody upon his mother or father furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and one surety for the like amount, with an undertaking to produce him before the Board as directed. The parents were directed to ensure his care, protection, education, welfare and appearance at each hearing; the Board was directed to oversee his welfare and participation in the proceedings.