A juvenile’s bail may be denied only on Section 12’s specified grounds.

The juvenile appellant was accused of sexually assaulting the informant in 2022 and later threatening to circulate a video and sending nude photographs; the informant lodged the report in 2025

The Children Court rejected the appellant’s application for regular bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The appellant appealed, submitting that the Social Investigation Report disclosed no criminal antecedents or other circumstances justifying refusal of bail, and that his parents could support his rehabilitation.

The State and informant opposed release, citing the seriousness of the allegation and potential risks to the appellant.

1. Whether the Children Court’s refusal of bail was sustainable under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, in the absence of material establishing a statutory ground for refusal

2. Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence, or the appellant’s being tried by the Children Court, could independently justify refusal of bail under Section 12

Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, overrides the general bail provisions and requires a child alleged to be in conflict with law to be released on bail, with or without surety, or placed under supervision or the care of a fit person.

Bail may be refused only where there are reasonable grounds to believe 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 reasons and supporting circumstances must be recorded.

The nature or seriousness of the alleged offence does not itself constitute a ground for refusal, and Section 12 applies even where a child is being tried as an adult.

Sections 3 and 15(2) require child-centred decision-making, consideration of the Social Investigation Report and the child’s welfare, rehabilitation and family circumstances; institutionalisation is a last resort.

The Court relied, among other authorities, on Juvenile in Conflict with Law v. State of Rajasthan, In Re-Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of T.N. v. Union of India, and Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu v. State of Bihar.

The Court accepted that the allegation was serious but held that seriousness was not a permissible independent basis for denying bail under Section 12.

The Social Investigation Report disclosed no association with known criminals or other material indicating that release would expose the appellant to danger; he had no antecedents apart from the present case.

Given that both parents were teachers and the family could support his studies and development, the Court found that release to parental care would promote, rather than defeat, the Act’s rehabilitative purpose.

The Children Court’s refusal was therefore unsustainable.

It directed the appellant’s release on bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000, subject to his father filing an affidavit undertaking to supervise him, prevent contact with criminal persons, support his developmental needs and continued studies, and ensure his attendance when required.