Bail to a CICL may be refused only on the statutory grounds under Section 12.

Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 936 of 2023 was registered under Sections 447, 341, 324, 307 and 302/34 of the IPC against the petitioner and others.

The allegation against the petitioner was that he assaulted the informant’s mother and other victims with a stick and rod; the specific allegation of stabbing the informant’s brother was against co-accused Aman Kumar and Anil Kumar Thakur, who subsequently died from his injuries.

The petitioner surrendered on 11 February 2025 and claimed juvenility.

The Juvenile Justice Board declared him a child in conflict with law on 27 June 2025.

His application for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 3 September 2025, and his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court on 21 January 2026.

He thereafter approached the High Court in revision, contending that the statutory grounds for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were absent.

Whether bail could be denied to the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, in the absence of the statutory grounds specified in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

Whether the findings of the courts below—that release of the petitioner might expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice—were supported by sufficient material in the SIR and SBR?

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

It further relied on Section 3 of the Act, particularly the principles of the best interest of the child, institutional care as a measure of last resort, and repatriation and restoration of the child to the family unless contrary to the child’s best interests.

The Court also recognised the child-friendly, reformative and rehabilitative object of the legislation and the court’s parens patriae obligation to protect the child’s best interests.

The Court held that the gravity of the alleged offences could not, by itself, justify denial of bail to a child in conflict with law.

On examination of the SIR and SBR, the Court found no material showing that the petitioner would come into contact with known criminals, lacked guardianship, or would face moral, physical or psychological danger upon release.

Although the SIR referred to threats against the petitioner and his family and recommended custody for safety, the Court held that such circumstances did not establish a statutory ground for refusing bail.

Institutionalisation could not be treated as a protective or rehabilitative measure in the absence of cogent material, particularly when care under parental or family guardianship was available and institutional care was legally intended to be a last resort.

Accordingly, the concurrent orders of the subordinate courts were found inconsistent with Section 12 and the governing principles of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, 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, both undertaking proper care and upkeep of the petitioner.

The petitioner was also directed to remain present before the Board on every date fixed in the case.