A CICL cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of criminal antecedents.

On 24 August 2025, during police patrol, information was allegedly received that the petitioner was carrying a pistol and intimidating local residents. A police team searched him and allegedly recovered a loaded pistol and five live cartridges. He was arrested after failing to produce valid firearm documentation, and Taraiya P.S. Case No. 257 of 2025 was registered for offences under Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act.

The Juvenile Justice Board declared the petitioner a child in conflict with law on 8 October 2025 and rejected his bail application on 14 October 2025 in JJB Case No. 914 of 2025. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, on 27 January 2026. He thereafter filed the present criminal revision, contending that bail could be denied to a CICL only on the grounds specified in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Whether the petitioner, being a child in conflict with law, could be denied bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, merely because a loaded firearm was allegedly recovered from him and he had three criminal antecedents?

Whether the courts below erred in refusing bail without recording that the petitioner’s release would bring him into contact with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice?

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 relied on the child-friendly and reformative objectives of the Act, particularly the principles under Section 3, including the best-interest principle, institutionalisation as a measure of last resort, and the child’s right to family restoration and rehabilitation.

The Court further held that criminal antecedents, by themselves, do not establish that a CICL is incorrigible or incapable of reformation.

The Court examined the Social Investigation Report and found no material indicating that the petitioner would come into contact with a known criminal upon release or that he lacked parental guardianship.

Although the petitioner had three criminal antecedents and was allegedly found carrying a loaded pistol with live cartridges, those circumstances did not independently satisfy any of the statutory grounds for denying bail under Section 12.

Applying the Act’s emphasis on the child’s best interests, reformation, rehabilitation and family-based care, the Court held that institutional custody could not be justified merely by treating the petitioner as a hardened or incorrigible offender.

The orders of the Board and the appellate court were therefore found legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including that one surety be a parent, the other be a relative without criminal antecedents who undertakes proper care and upkeep, the petitioner appear before the Board on every date, and the Board may seek cancellation of bail if he is subsequently involved in a similar act.