Bail cannot be denied to a juvenile based on mere apprehension of safety without substantive supporting material.

The informant lodged a complaint (Desari P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024) after her 8-year-old son went missing

Following the recovery of the child’s body, the petitioner (a minor) was implicated in the murder along with others

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) declared the petitioner a "Child in Conflict with Law" (CICL), aged 15 at the time of the occurrence

Both the JJB and the Children’s Court (Appellate Court) rejected the petitioner's bail applications, primarily on the ground that his release might expose him to physical harm due to an existing land dispute and a "revenge angle" with the informant

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision, contending that the denial was based on mere presumption

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a CICL shall be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such release would lead to association with known criminals, expose the child to moral/physical danger, or defeat the ends of justice

Principles of "Best Interest of the Child" (Section 3(iv)), "Family Responsibility" (Section 3(v)), and "Repatriation and Restoration" (Section 3(xiii)), which prioritize the reunion of a child with their family over institutionalization

Lalu Kumar Ors. vs. The State of Bihar Ors. (2019), establishing that the nature of the offense is immaterial for bail considerations for a minor

The Court observed that the lower courts erred by focusing on the "revenge angle" and the gravity of the murder charges rather than the statutory requirements of Section 12

It found that the apprehension regarding the petitioner’s safety was a "mere presumption" not supported by substantive material on record

Regarding the objection that the petitioner’s mother was also a co-accused, the Court noted she had already been granted bail and that the "home environment" remains a superior site for reformation compared to an observation home

The Court held that institutionalization should be shunned if the child’s development can be better insured within the family

The interest of the child is paramount and that the petitioner deserved to be kept in a home environment for reformation

The revision was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties (including a parent), subject to the condition that the guardians ensure his proper upbringing and presence during the inquiry