Bail cannot be denied to a CICL absent specific evidence of statutory disqualifying grounds.

The appellant, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), represented by his father, challenged under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the order dated 10 June 2026 of the Children’s Court, Balasore, refusing him bail in Special (CICL) Case No. 95 of 2026 arising from Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 95 of 2026.

He was initially accused of offences under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which were subsequently altered to Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS, concerning the alleged murder of Suraj Singh @ Babu by a group of CICLs and an adult accused acting in furtherance of common intention.

The prosecution case indicated that the fatal blow was allegedly delivered by the adult accused, Chhotu @ Khitish Kumar Das, who had been called to the spot by another CICL; no such role was attributed to the present appellant.

The appellant had remained in a detention home/place of safety since 6 March 2026, while the trial had not commenced.

His Social Investigation Report (SIR) recorded peer-group influence as a contributory cause, but also stated that he had no prior criminal record, had good conduct at the place of safety, and could improve through parental and professional counselling.

The preliminary assessment report stated that he understood the consequences of the alleged offence, was cooperative, displayed no aggression, and showed emotional distress.

The Court applied Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which permits an appeal against an order of the Children’s Court, and Section 12 of the Act, under which a CICL is ordinarily entitled to 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.

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning murder and common intention.

The Court held that the statutory grounds for denying bail were not established. Although the State and the informant relied on the SIR to contend that the appellant was already in bad association, the report did not clarify the nature of that alleged association.

The factual account instead suggested that the incident arose from a quarrel concerning rash or high-speed riding on Holi, after which another CICL called the adult accused to the spot; the fatal assault was attributed to that adult accused, and the present appellant was not alleged to have summoned him.

The appellant’s absence of any prior criminal record, good conduct in the place of safety, favourable character assessment, and the recommendation for counselling weighed in favour of release.

His continued detention since 6 March 2026, the non-commencement of trial, and the preliminary assessment showing cooperation, emotional distress and awareness of the consequences further supported bail.

Accordingly, the Court found no sufficient basis to conclude that release would attract the statutory exceptions under Section 12.

The appellant-CICL was directed to be released on bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the concerned Board/Court, without requiring a cash surety.

As a specific condition, his father was directed to ensure that the appellant did not associate with any known criminal.