A CICL’s bail may be denied only upon establishing grounds specified under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

The petitioner, a child in conflict with law (CICL), was apprehended in connection with Salimpur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026, registered for offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b)(c) and 22(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. During a vehicle-checking and special-drive operation, co-accused Nirad Kumar was allegedly found possessing 20 grams of brown-sugar-like substance. At his instance, the petitioner and another co-accused were apprehended, and 42 grams of contraband was allegedly recovered from the petitioner along with a motorcycle.

The petitioner had remained in custody since 5 January 2026 and was declared a CICL by the Juvenile Justice Board on 6 March 2026.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Patna rejected the petitioner’s bail application on 2 April 2026 in JJB Case No. 27 of 2026. His statutory appeal was dismissed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Patna, on 19 June 2026. The petitioner consequently invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

He relied, inter alia, on the grant of bail to the co-accused and contended that none of the statutory grounds for denying bail to a CICL was established.

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

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court erred in rejecting bail without recording reasons addressing the statutory grounds under Section 12 of the 2015 Act?

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 release on bail notwithstanding the nature or gravity of the alleged offence, 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.

The Court also applied the child-friendly and reformative principles under Section 3 of the 2015 Act, particularly the best-interest principle, the requirement that institutionalisation be a measure of last resort, and the principle of restoration and repatriation of the child to the family and social environment, subject to the child’s best interests.

The governing approach is therefore protective, rehabilitative and non-retributive rather than punitive.

The Court held that the alleged recovery of contraband and the seriousness of the offences under the NDPS Act could not, by themselves, justify refusal of bail to a CICL. Section 12 required the courts to examine whether any of the specific statutory exceptions existed.

The record did not disclose material establishing that the petitioner’s release would expose him to criminal influence, moral, physical or psychological danger, or frustrate the ends of justice.

The Court further noted that the subordinate courts had rejected bail in a routine manner without adequately discussing the statutory requirements under Section 12.

The petitioner’s father, his natural guardian, had undertaken to keep him in proper care and prevent his association with anti-social or criminal elements. This assurance, considered alongside the Act’s best-interest, rehabilitation and family-restoration principles, supported the petitioner’s release on bail.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject 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, both undertaking the petitioner’s care and upkeep. The petitioner was also directed to remain present before the Board on every date fixed in the case.

The revision petition was accordingly allowed.