Bail cannot be denied to a juvenile without substantive evidence of contact with criminals or physical/psychological danger.

The petitioners, identified as children in conflict with law (CICL), were arrested after police allegedly recovered 102 and 96 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate from their respective backpacks during a patrol

Following their detention on September 23, 2025, they were declared CICL by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)

The JJB denied bail on October 18, 2025, a decision subsequently upheld by the Children’s Court on December 6, 2025, on the grounds that the minors had fallen into "bad company" and lacked parental discipline

The petitioners moved the High Court in revision, arguing they had clean antecedents and that the statutory requirements for denying bail were not met

1. Whether the lower courts were justified in denying bail under the exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

2. Whether there was sufficient substantive material to conclude that the release of the petitioners would expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger

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 the release would bring them into association with known criminals or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger

Section 3 of the Act, which outlines the principles of "best interest of the child," "institutionalization as a last resort," and the "principle of repatriation and restoration" to the family

Section 74 regarding the confidentiality of a minor's identity

The High Court observed that the statutory theme of the 2015 Act is reformative rather than punitive, making bail the rule and detention the exception

The Court found that the JJB and the Appellate Court failed to produce substantive evidence or material to support the claim that the petitioners would associate with criminals if released

The Court noted that the petitioners had no prior criminal record ("clean antecedent")

The Court reasoned that since the lower courts' findings were based on conjecture regarding "bad company" without specific evidence, the orders were unsustainable and failed to prioritize the "best interest" of the children as required by law

The Court allowed both revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Children’s Court and the Juvenile Justice Board

The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each, with the condition that one bailor must be a parent and the other a relative, who provide an undertaking for the proper care and upkeep of the minors