Bail to a child in conflict with law cannot be denied based on nature of offence alone.

The petitioner, a minor (born 05-04-2010), was accused in Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 553 of 2024 for allegedly murdering his aunt with a sword at the instigation of family members.

The petitioner was declared a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on 07-01-2025.

His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on 11-06-2025, a decision subsequently upheld by the Children’s Court on 06-10-2025.

The lower courts denied bail citing a lack of parental guardianship, potential danger to the CICL’s well-being, and the possibility of retaliation from the victim's family.

The petitioner challenged these concurrent orders via the present revision petition, offering his sister as a guardian.

1. Whether the lower courts properly applied the statutory criteria for refusing bail to a minor under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. Whether the nature of the offence and the alleged lack of parental supervision are sufficient grounds to deny bail to a CICL.

The court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for a CICL unless release brings them into contact with known criminals, exposes them to moral/physical danger, or defeats the ends of justice.

Section 3 (General Principles), emphasizing the "Best Interest of the Child" [Section 3(iv)], the principle of institutionalization as a "last resort" [Section 3(xii)], and the "Principle of repatriation and restoration" [Section 3(xiii)].

Lalu Kumar Ors. v. The State of Bihar Ors (2019), establishing that the gravity of the offence is not a valid ground to refuse bail to a minor.

The High Court found that the JJB and the Appellate Court failed to provide substantive material evidence to support the finding that the petitioner was in physical or psychological danger.

The Court noted that the "lack of guardianship" cited by lower courts was unsustainable as the parents were merely unavailable due to being co-accused (and later enlarged on bail), and the minor’s sister was willing to provide supervision.

The Court reasoned that the primary objective of the 2015 Act is reformation; thus, institutionalization should only be a last resort.

Since the petitioner had a clean antecedent and had been in custody for over 18 months, the Court determined that the statutory exceptions for denying bail were not met.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties (one being a parent/relative). The guardian must provide an undertaking for the proper upkeep and care of the child, and the petitioner must attend all Board proceedings.