Bail for Children in Conflict with Law Cannot be Denied Based Solely on Gravity of Offence

The petitioners, two minors, were accused in Kuwari P.S. Case No. 08 of 2025 for the alleged murder of the informant’s son, whose body was found in a pond

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Araria, assessed their ages as approximately 11 and 12 years respectively and declared them Children in Conflict with Law (CICL)

The JJB rejected their bail application on 03.05.2025, a decision subsequently upheld by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge (Children Court), Araria, in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2025 on 12.09.2025

The lower courts reasoned that release would expose the CICLs to moral or psychological danger and noted the gravity of the offence

The petitioners challenged these orders via the present criminal revision

1. Whether the nature and gravity of the offence is a valid ground to deny bail to a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

2. Whether the lower courts' findings regarding the physical or psychological danger to the petitioners were supported by sufficient material evidence

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for a CICL unless specific exceptions regarding contact with criminals or moral/physical danger are proven

Section 3 of the Act, which emphasizes the "Principle of Best Interest," "Institutionalization as a last resort," and the "Principle of repatriation and restoration"

The court cited the precedent Lalu Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2019 (4) PLJR 833), which established that the nature of the offence is immaterial for granting bail to a juvenile

The High Court found that the lower courts erred by focusing on the gravity of the murder allegation rather than the statutory requirements of Section 12

The Court observed that there was no substantive material evidence on record to indicate that the petitioners would fall into bad company or face physical danger if released; the appellate court's findings were deemed speculative

The Court reasoned that institutionalization is a "last resort" and that rehabilitation is best achieved under the guardianship of parents rather than in a facility

Since the petitioners had clean antecedents and had remained in custody for over 16 months, the Court held that the "best interest of the child" principle outweighed the nature of the charges

The Court answered both issues in the negative, holding that the gravity of the crime cannot be a basis for bail rejection for a minor

The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, one of whom must be a parent providing an undertaking for the proper care and upkeep of the child