Bail under Section 12 is warranted where no statutory exception justifies detaining a child in conflict with law.

The applicant, a child in conflict with law, was apprehended in connection with Crime No. 150/2025, registered for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that he and four family members killed Fekuram during a dispute over ancestral agricultural land.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the applicant’s bail application, and the Additional Sessions Judge affirmed that order.

In revision, the applicant relied on the Social Investigation Report, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, his satisfactory conduct in the Observation Home, and the grant of bail to a co-accused.

The State opposed release, noting that the alleged weapon had been seized from the applicant.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offence

2. Whether the orders rejecting bail should be set aside in light of the Social Investigation Report, the applicant’s circumstances in the Observation Home, and the bail granted to a co-accused

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 requires a child alleged to be in conflict with law to be released on bail, with or without surety, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that 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 revision was brought under Section 102 of the Act, which provides the procedural basis for the High Court’s consideration of the challenged orders.

The Court considered the applicant’s age, his period in the Observation Home, the absence of any disclosed criminal antecedents, his satisfactory conduct, and the Social Investigation Report.

It also noted that a co-accused had been granted bail.

Weighing those circumstances against the State’s objection concerning the seized weapon, the Court found no reasonable grounds to conclude that release would trigger any of the statutory exceptions in Section 12.

It therefore held that continued detention was not warranted under the Act.

The parents were directed to ensure the applicant’s care, protection, education, welfare, and appearance before the Board; the Board was directed to oversee his welfare and continued participation in the proceedings.