A child in conflict with law may be denied bail only on Section 12’s specified grounds.

The petitioner, aged about 14 years and two months and studying in Class 10, was alleged to have joined other children in conflict with law in assaulting and killing the deceased with a weapon on 23 August 2026.

The police registered Crime No.472 of 2026 for offences under Sections 103 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Juvenile Justice Board refused bail on 3 September 2026, and the Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, upheld that refusal on 19 September 2026.

The petitioner sought revision and release on bail.

He had been in institutional custody for 36 days.

Whether the orders refusing bail to the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, should be set aside and bail granted under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Whether the material before the Court established any statutory ground for withholding bail, including risk of association with known criminals, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat of the ends of justice.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for release on bail of a child in conflict with law, irrespective of the alleged offence’s classification or gravity, unless 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.

The Court relied on the Rajasthan High Court and Uttarakhand High Court decisions it quoted for this interpretation, and referred to Subham Kumar Malik (Juvenile) v. State of U.P. and Another in considering the Social Investigation Report.

The revision was brought under Section 102 of the 2015 Act, as stated in the prayer.

The Court considered the petitioner’s young age, student status, lack of any previous case, 36 days in institutional custody, and the Social Investigation Report, which contained no adverse remark.

It found no material supporting a legitimate inference that release would trigger any of the risks specified in Section 12.

Although the alleged offence involved a fatal assault, the Court held that the statutory grounds for denying a child bail were not established on the record.

These included a ₹50,000 personal bond and two sureties of like amount; guardian supervision and undertakings concerning the child’s studies, safety, and non-contact with co-accused and witnesses; monthly reporting to the District Probation Officer; probation monitoring; and a restriction on leaving the Board/Children Court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.