Bail to a juvenile is mandatory under Section 12, regardless of the gravity of the offence.

The appellant, a juvenile aged 17 years, 8 months at the time of the incident, was accused of kidnapping a victim with intent to marry her.

During the investigation, the victim’s body was recovered, and the cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act and transferred the case to the Children Court for the appellant to be tried as an adult for offences under Sections 366(A), 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act.

The Children Court rejected the appellant’s bail application on September 19, 2025, citing the gravity of the offence and incriminating evidence in police statements.

The appellant challenged this order, asserting that bail for juveniles is governed strictly by Section 12 of the JJ Act.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a juvenile "shall" be released on bail regardless of the gravity of the offence, unless the release brings them into association with known criminals, exposes them to danger, or defeats the ends of justice.

Section 3 of the Act regarding the "principle of best interest" and "institutionalization as a last resort".

The court relied on Juvenile in Conflict with Law v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SC), which held bail can only be denied if specific findings regarding the Section 12 proviso are recorded.

Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu v. State of Bihar (2019), which clarified that the nature of the offence is irrelevant to juvenile bail.

The Court observed that the Children Court erroneously rejected bail based on the "heinous" nature of the crime (Section 302 IPC) and the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

The High Court reasoned that Section 12 of the JJ Act overrides the CrPC and makes bail the rule, with refusal being a rare exception.

Upon reviewing the Social Investigation Report, the Court found no evidence that the appellant or his family had criminal antecedents or that his home environment was detrimental to his rehabilitation.

The Court interpreted "ends of justice" within the JJ Act framework not as punishment, but as the welfare and reform of the child.

Since no material suggested that the appellant would fall into bad company or face psychological danger if released, the statutory requirements for denying bail were not met.

The appellant was ordered to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with an undertaking from his father to ensure his supervision, and the DLSA and District Magistrate were directed to assist the family in accessing welfare schemes.