A CICL cannot be denied bail merely because family members are co-accused.

Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 394 of 2024 was registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303 and 103 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the petitioner and other accused assaulted the informant’s family, resulting in the death of one person and serious injuries to another.

The petitioner was arrested on 24 June 2025 and claimed juvenility. The Juvenile Justice Board determined that he was aged 15 years, 6 months and 27 days on the date of the alleged occurrence and declared him a child in conflict with law (CICL).

The Board rejected his bail application on 5 August 2025, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal on 29 August 2025.

The petitioner contended that the case arose from a land dispute, that a counter-case had been lodged by his side, and that the courts below had denied bail without demonstrating any statutory ground under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The identity of the CICL was anonymised as “XX” in accordance with Section 74 of the Act.

Whether the petitioner/CICL was entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in the absence of material showing that his release would expose him to criminal elements, moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice?

Whether the fact that the petitioner’s family members were co-accused was, by itself, sufficient to deny restoration to the family and refuse bail?

Whether the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court refusing bail were sustainable in light of the Act’s principles of best interest, rehabilitation, restoration and institutional care as a last resort?

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 12 mandates release of a CICL on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing 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 embodies the Act’s guiding principles, including the best-interest principle, under which decisions must promote the child’s development and full potential; the principle that institutional care is a measure of last resort after reasonable inquiry; and the principle of repatriation and restoration to the family unless such restoration is contrary to the child’s best interest.

The Court also applied Section 74, which prohibits disclosure of the identity of a child in conflict with law.

The Court held that the subordinate courts had denied bail principally because the petitioner’s family members were co-accused and, consequently, assumed that restoration to the family would not be in his best interest.

The Court found this reasoning unsupported by the record: the allegations against the petitioner were non-specific, the occurrence arose in the context of a case and counter-case relating to a land dispute, and there was no material showing that the petitioner or his family members had criminal antecedents, were habitual offenders, or posed a danger to the petitioner’s welfare.

Since none of the statutory exceptions under Section 12 was established, bail could not lawfully be refused.

Applying the Act’s child-friendly and rehabilitative framework, the Court emphasised that institutionalisation is a last resort and that family restoration ordinarily serves the child’s best interests where no specific risk is demonstrated.

The petitioner/CICL 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 or the concerned court.

One surety was required to be a parent and the other a relative without criminal antecedents; the petitioner was also required to undertake not to engage in unlawful activities or associate with anti-social elements and to remain present before the Board on every date fixed in the case.