A CICL’s bail cannot be denied solely on offence gravity absent Section 12 grounds.

The petitioner was implicated in Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2025 for offences under Sections 65(a), 66 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

The informant alleged that his 16-year-old daughter left home, was later found at PMCH, Patna, and died.

The petitioner, who was present at the hospital, allegedly disclosed that he and the deceased were in a relationship and that she died from excessive bleeding following sexual intercourse.

The petitioner was taken into custody on 13 July 2025 and claimed juvenility.

The Juvenile Justice Board determined that he was 16 years, 1 month and 1 day old on the date of occurrence and declared him a Child in Conflict with Law (“CICL”).

His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 12 September 2025, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal on 12 November 2025.

He thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.

Whether bail could be denied to the petitioner, a CICL, under Section 12 of the JJ Act in the absence of cogent material showing that his release would bring him into contact with criminal elements, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice?

Whether the courts below erred in rejecting bail primarily on the basis of the seriousness of the allegation and general concerns regarding the petitioner’s social and family circumstances?

The Court primarily applied Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, under which a CICL is ordinarily entitled to bail unless release would bring the child into contact with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

It further relied on the child-friendly object of the JJ Act and the general principles under Section 3, including the best-interest principle, the requirement that institutionalisation be used only as a measure of last resort, and the principle of restoration and repatriation to the family and social environment where consistent with the child’s best interests.

The Court held that these provisions require courts to prefer the child’s reformation, rehabilitation and protection over institutional custody, and that the seriousness or gravity of the allegation, by itself, is not a valid ground to refuse bail to a CICL.

The Court found that the petitioner had clean antecedents, had remained in custody since 13 July 2025, and had a mother willing to provide care and supervision.

Although the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report referred to family indiscipline, poverty, lack of education and inadequate social values, they did not establish that release would expose the petitioner to known criminals, create a specific moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The lower courts’ conclusions were therefore unsupported by cogent material.

Applying the best-interest, rehabilitation and last-resort principles under the JJ Act, the Court held that continued institutional custody was not justified and that the alleged seriousness of the offence could not override the statutory entitlement to bail under Section 12.

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

One surety was required to be a parent and the other a relative without criminal antecedents, both undertaking the petitioner’s proper care and upkeep.

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