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

The petitioner, a child in conflict with law (“CICL”), was implicated in Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025 under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning an armed robbery at a jewellery shop involving the alleged theft of cash and ornaments.

The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and his involvement allegedly emerged from the confessional statement of a co-accused; no recovery was made from him.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan declared him a CICL and assessed his age as 17 years, 3 months and 4 days on the date of the offence.

The Board rejected his bail application on 19 January 2026, and the Children’s Court-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan dismissed his appeal on 18 March 2026.

The petitioner thereafter filed the present criminal revision, asserting that he had no criminal antecedents and had been in the remand home since 29 November 2025.

Whether the petitioner, being a CICL, could be denied bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in the absence of material showing that his release would expose him to criminal influence, moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court committed an error in refusing bail and affirming such refusal.

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 and bail may be refused only where release is likely to bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

The Court also relied on the child-friendly and rehabilitative objectives of the Act, including the principle that decisions must be guided by the child’s best interests and development under Section 3(iv), institutional care should be a measure of last resort under Section 3(xii), and the child should be restored and reunited with the family under Section 3(xiii).

Courts exercising jurisdiction concerning children must act as parens patriae and favour reformation, rehabilitation and restoration where the statutory grounds for refusing bail are absent.

The High Court found no material in the Social Investigation Report or other record demonstrating that the petitioner would come into contact with a known criminal, that he lacked guardianship, or that his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.

The alleged involvement rested primarily on the co-accused’s confessional statement, while the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor connected with any recovery.

The Court held that the seriousness of the alleged offence, by itself, could not override the statutory presumption in favour of bail under Section 12.

Considering the petitioner’s age, clean antecedents, parental guardianship and the Act’s rehabilitative purpose, the Court concluded that continued institutional custody was inconsistent with the principle that institutionalisation is a last resort.

It accordingly set aside the appellate order dated 18 March 2026 and the Juvenile Justice Board’s order dated 19 January 2026.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, subject to the conditions that one bailor be a parent, the other be a relative without criminal antecedents who undertakes the petitioner’s care and upkeep, and that the petitioner remain present before the Board on every date fixed for the proceedings.

The criminal revision was accordingly allowed.