Bail cannot be denied to a juvenile solely based on gravity of offence without evidence of statutory exceptions.

The petitioner, a 15-year-old student (Child in Conflict with Law - CICL), was accused of ravishing a five-year-old girl, leading to the registration of Ballia P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 under Section 65(2) of the BNS and Sections 6/10 of the POCSO Act

The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Board, Begusarai, rejected the petitioner's bail plea on 28.05.2025

This was subsequently upheld by the Children Court, Begusarai, on 24.09.2025, which cited the gravity of the offense, potential communal tension, and the petitioner's alleged bad associations and habits

The petitioner challenged these concurrent rejections via the present revision petition

1. Whether the gravity of the alleged offense is a valid ground to deny bail to a Child in Conflict with Law under the Juvenile Justice Act

2. Whether the statutory conditions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for refusing bail were sufficiently established by the lower courts

The court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which mandates that a CICL shall be released on bail unless such release brings the child into association with known criminals, exposes them to moral/physical danger, or defeats the ends of justice

Sections 3(iv), (xii), and (xiii) of the JJ Act, which establish the principles of "best interest," institutionalization as a "last resort," and the "right to repatriation and restoration" to the family

bail cannot be denied solely due to the enormity or graveness of the allegations

The High Court found that the lower courts erred by focusing on the "gravity of the offences" rather than the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act

The court noted the petitioner had a clean antecedent and was a student of Class 11, making institutionalization contrary to his best interests

Regarding the exceptions in Section 12, the court observed that there was "nothing on record" to support the apprehension that the petitioner would face physical or psychological danger due to communal factors

It further reasoned that reformation and rehabilitation are better achieved within the family unit rather than protective custody

The Social Investigation Report was found to be generally favorable, and the "bad company" allegations in the Social Background Report were insufficient to override the statutory presumption in favor of bail

The Court set aside the orders dated 24.09.2025 and 28.05.2025. The revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, one being a parent, subject to conditions of supervision and appearance