A child in conflict with law must receive bail absent Section 12 disqualifying grounds.

The petitioner, a child in conflict with law (CICL), was implicated in Chautham P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025 for offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the informant and her husband were travelling by motorcycle when three persons, including the petitioner, allegedly intercepted them, fired pistols, and that co-accused Ashish Kumar shot the informant’s husband in the head, resulting in his death during treatment.

The petitioner was declared a CICL and was determined to be 14 years, 6 months and 2 days old on the date of the alleged offence.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application on 10 November 2025, and the appellate court affirmed that decision on 29 January 2026.

The petitioner thereafter filed the present criminal revision, contending that the specific allegation of firing was against Ashish Kumar, that the allegation against him was general and omnibus, and that he had been in the remand home since 1 July 2025.

Whether bail could be denied to the petitioner, a CICL, under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in the absence of material showing that his release would bring him into contact with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice?

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court erred in refusing bail by relying principally on the Social Investigation Report and the seriousness of the alleged offence?

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 irrespective of the nature of the alleged offence, unless 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.

The Court also applied the child-friendly and reformative principles under Section 3 of the Act, including the principle that decisions must be based on the child’s best interests and development, institutionalisation should be used only as a measure of last resort, and the child should ordinarily be restored to the family and social environment unless such restoration is contrary to the child’s best interests.

The Court further recognised the protective and parens patriae role of courts in securing the reformation, rehabilitation, and best interests of a CICL.

The Court held that the statutory grounds under Section 12 must be specifically established before bail can be refused to a CICL.

Although the Social Investigation Report referred to the petitioner’s alleged involvement in a heinous offence due to bad association, the Court found no material demonstrating that, if released, he would come into contact with any known criminal, lacked guardianship, or would be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger.

The petitioner’s maternal uncle had undertaken to supervise him, provide proper care and education, prevent contact with bad company, and ensure his welfare.

In view of the Act’s reformative purpose and its preference for family-based care over institutionalisation, the Court concluded that continued custody in the remand home was not justified merely because of the seriousness of the allegation.

The subordinate courts had therefore misapplied Section 12 and committed an error in refusing bail.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Khagaria, or the concerned court.

One surety was required to be a parent, while the other had to be a relative without criminal antecedents who would undertake the petitioner’s care and upkeep.

The petitioner was also required to remain present before the Board on every date fixed in the case.