A child’s bail cannot be denied based on alleged active involvement absent Section 12 grounds.

On 25 September 2024, the petitioner was arrested after allegedly driving a vehicle transporting 138 kilograms of ganja, and an offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act was registered against him.

He was initially detained in the District Jail as an adult.

During proceedings before the Special Judge, NDPS, he was found to have been below 18 years of age at the time of the incident, and the case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).

The JJB rejected his application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act); the appellate court affirmed that decision.

He challenged both orders in revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act.

The petitioner argued that there was no basis to find that release would expose him to the risks specified in Section 12, and that he had no criminal antecedents and the investigation was complete.

1. Whether the JJB and appellate court erred in refusing bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act to a child in conflict with law.

2. Whether the petitioner’s alleged active role in transporting ganja, without material establishing a statutory ground for refusal, justified continued detention.

Section 12 of the JJ Act governs bail for a person who is apparently a child and provides for release on bail, with or without surety, unless there are reasonable grounds for believing 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 of the JJ Act provides the basis for the High Court’s revision.

The Court also identified the child’s best interests, rehabilitation and reformation as paramount considerations under the JJ Act.

The Court accepted that the petitioner was below 18 at the time of the alleged offence and assessed the refusal of bail against Section 12’s specified grounds.

It found no material indicating that release would bring him into association with a known criminal.

The lower courts had relied primarily on his alleged active role, which the Court held did not satisfy the statutory requirements for refusing bail.

Given the child’s age and the rehabilitative purpose of the JJ Act, the Court considered continued detention inconsistent with his best interests.

It directed that the child be released into his uncle’s custody on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with a solvent surety in the like amount, subject to conditions including supervision by the uncle, attendance before the JJB, avoidance of association with criminals, compliance with the Board’s conditions and vigilance by the Probation Officer.

The Court further directed that breach of bail conditions would result in automatic cancellation.