A Child in Conflict with Law Must Be Granted Bail Absent Section 12 Exceptions.

An FIR was registered against the Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), then aged approximately 17 years and 5 months, for offences under Sections 103(1), 118(1) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The CICL was apprehended and placed in an observation home.

After the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet filed, his father sought bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the application, and the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal.

The father then filed this revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act.

The CICL’s stated role was to have caught hold of the deceased; no injury was attributed to him.

Whether the orders refusing bail should be set aside where the statutory grounds for refusing bail under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act were not supported by specific material.

Whether the CICL should be released on bail, subject to conditions addressing his care, supervision and rehabilitation.

Section 12(1) of the JJ Act establishes release on bail as the general rule for a child alleged to be in conflict with law, whether the alleged offence is bailable or non-bailable.

Bail may be refused only where reasonable grounds support a finding 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 provides for revision, while Section 101 provides for an appeal from the Board’s order.

Rule 11(6) and Form 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 provide for a parent, guardian or fit person to execute an undertaking or bond and assume responsibility for the child’s good behaviour and well-being.

The JJ Act’s child-centred approach includes care, protection, rehabilitation and social reintegration.

The Board and appellate court had relied principally on the seriousness of the alleged offence and the possibility of future offending or association with criminal elements.

The High Court found no specific material showing that release into the parents’ care would engage any of the three statutory exceptions in Section 12(1); the probation report described the family as having no criminal antecedents and identified the CICL’s potential for improvement if kept away from notorious groups.

The limited role attributed to the CICL, the absence of an injury attributed to him, and the completion of the investigation further supported release, without requiring a determination on the merits.

Parental undertakings and supervision under Form 8, together with additional conditions, were considered appropriate safeguards.

These included parental undertakings in Form 8, parental care and supervision, cooperation with the Probation Officer, non-interference with witnesses, attendance before the Board, and restrictions on leaving its jurisdiction without permission.

The Board was authorised to modify or add conditions, and was directed to release the CICL forthwith if his custody was not required in another matter.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.