Bail to a CICL cannot be denied solely on offence gravity absent Section 12 grounds.

The informant lodged Bidupur P.S. Case No. 341 of 2025 alleging that the petitioners and other accused persons assaulted her husband. The petitioners allegedly caught hold of the deceased’s hands while their father assaulted him on the head with an iron rod, causing a fatal head injury.

The petitioners were taken into custody on 17 May 2025 and claimed juvenility. The Juvenile Justice Board determined petitioner XX’s age as 17 years, 7 months and 13 days and petitioner YY’s age as 16 years, 9 months and 13 days on the date of occurrence, declaring them children in conflict with law.

Their applications for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 1 August 2025. The appellate court dismissed their appeal on 28 January 2026, affirming the Board’s order.

The petitioners thereafter invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whether the petitioners, being children in conflict with law, could be denied bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in the absence of cogent material showing that their release would bring them into contact with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice?

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court erred in refusing bail primarily on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations and an unsubstantiated apprehension regarding the petitioners’ release?

The Court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, under which a child alleged to be in conflict with law is ordinarily entitled to bail unless release is likely to bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court also relied on the general principles under Section 3 of the Act, particularly the best-interest principle under Section 3(iv), the principle that institutional care is a measure of last resort under Section 3(xii), and the principle of restoration and reunification with family under Section 3(xiii).

The Act is child-friendly and is directed toward the protection, reformation, rehabilitation and development of the child; the gravity or seriousness of the alleged offence, by itself, is not a valid ground to deny bail under Section 12.

The Court found that the petitioners were adolescent girls with no criminal antecedents and that the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report did not furnish cogent material demonstrating that their release would expose them to known criminals, moral, physical or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

The subordinate courts had relied on general observations concerning the absence of proper human values and moral education in the family, without supporting evidence sufficient to satisfy the exceptions in Section 12.

Applying the best-interest, rehabilitation and non-institutionalisation principles under Section 3, the Court held that the seriousness of the allegation could not override the statutory presumption in favour of bail for a child in conflict with law.

The Court also noted that the petitioners’ grandfather had undertaken to care for them and protect them from anti-social elements.

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board or the concerned court.

One surety was required to be a parent and the other a relative without criminal antecedents, with an undertaking to ensure the petitioners’ care and upkeep. The petitioners were also directed to remain present before the Board on every date fixed in the case.