Bail to a juvenile cannot be denied based on the gravity of offence or without specific evidence of danger.

The Petitioner, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), was accused in Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504/34 of the IPC and Sections 4 6 of the POCSO Act

It was alleged he induced the minor granddaughter of the informant into a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage, resulting in pregnancy

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) determined his age as 17 years, 9 months, and 23 days at the time of the occurrence

Both the JJB (order dated 14.05.2025) and the Appellate Court (judgment dated 04.07.2025) rejected the Petitioner's bail plea, citing the gravity of the offense and potential danger to the victim

The Petitioner challenged these orders through this revision petition

1. Whether the nature and gravity of the offense serve as valid grounds to deny bail to a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

2. Whether there was sufficient material evidence to suggest that the release of the CICL would expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger or bring him into association with known criminals

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

Principle of Best Interest under Section 3(iv), Institutionalization as a last resort under Section 3(xii), and the Principle of Repatriation and Restoration under Section 3(xiii)

Lalu Kumar Ors. v. The State of Bihar Ors. (2019), which established that the gravity of the offense is not a consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile

The Court observed that neither the JJB nor the Appellate Court provided substantial evidence to justify the denial of bail based on the exceptions listed in Section 12 of the Act

The High Court noted that the lower courts focused on the nature of the allegations (rape/POCSO) rather than the statutory requirements for juveniles

The Court reasoned that reformation is the primary objective of the JJ Act, and institutionalization should only be a last resort

As the Petitioner had a clean antecedent and had been in custody for over a year (since 11.06.2024), and given that his parents expressed a willingness to supervise him, the High Court found no legal basis for continued detention

The Petitioner (X1) was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, one being his parents, who must undertake his proper care

The Court additionally directed the Registry to mask the identity of the CICL in compliance with Section 74 of the JJ Act