Bail to juvenile is mandatory unless specific statutory disqualifications under Section 12 JJ Act are established.

The applicant, a 15-year-old child in conflict with law, was allegedly involved in an incident where a group assaulted the complainant with lathis.

During the altercation, a co-accused (Ajay Jha) allegedly fired a country-made firearm, killing one Amar Singh Rajpoot.

The applicant was charged under Sections 109(1), 331(4), 238, 115(2), 296, 3(5), and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 25(1)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Datia (11.02.2026) and the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (10.03.2026) rejected the applicant’s bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

1. Whether the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the mandatory bail provisions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. Whether there existed any exceptional circumstances, such as moral or psychological danger, to justify the denial of bail to the juvenile.

The court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be released on bail notwithstanding the nature of the offence.

The only exceptions to this rule are if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the person into association with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

The High Court observed that the primary allegation of firing the fatal shot was attributed to the co-accused, while the applicant was merely alleged to have been present and fled the scene.

Upon reviewing the record and the Probation Officer’s report, the Court found no evidence suggesting that the applicant’s release would expose him to criminal associations or psychological danger.

The Court determined that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court had passed their orders in a "cursory manner" and on "flimsy grounds," failing to align with the rehabilitative object of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Since the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 12 were not met, the Court held that the juvenile was entitled to bail.

The Court directed that the juvenile be handed over to the custody of his father upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 by his maternal aunt. The release is subject to specific conditions, including supervision by the Guardian-father and the Probation Officer, a prohibition on associating with known criminals, and a requirement for the juvenile to report to the Probation Officer monthly.