A child in conflict with law must be granted bail unless Section 12 exceptions apply.

The petitioner, a child in conflict with law (CICL), was accused of offences under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, arising from an allegation concerning the informant’s three-year-old daughter

The Juvenile Justice Board assessed the petitioner’s age at the time of the alleged offence as fourteen years, six months and five days; he had been in custody since 10 July 2025

The Board refused bail, and the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal

The petitioner challenged both orders in revision, submitting that the statutory grounds for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) were not established

1. Whether the petitioner’s bail could be denied under Section 12 of the JJ Act in the absence of material establishing one of its statutory exceptions

2. Whether the Board and the appellate court erred in refusing bail and whether their orders should be set aside

Section 12 of the JJ Act establishes 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 denied only where reasonable grounds indicate 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

Section 3(iv) requires decisions concerning a child to be guided by the child’s best interests and development; Section 3(xii) treats institutional care as a last resort following reasonable inquiry; and Section 3(xiii) recognizes the principle of repatriation and restoration, subject to the child’s best interests

The Court applied Section 12’s limited grounds for refusing bail and found that the record did not establish that the petitioner would associate with known criminals, face danger to his well-being, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice

It considered his clean antecedents, age at the time of the alleged offence, and the purpose of rehabilitation under the JJ Act.

Although the State relied on allegations of serious offending and the petitioner’s reported exposure to pornography and bad company, the Court concluded that these circumstances did not establish the statutory grounds for denying bail

It also emphasized that institutionalization should be a last resort and that reformation may be better served in a home environment

It set aside the appellate court’s order and, consequentially, the Board’s order, and allowed the revision

The petitioner was ordered released on a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including that one bailor be a parent, the other be a relative without criminal antecedents who undertakes to care for the petitioner, and that the petitioner attend every date fixed by the Board