CICL bail may be denied only on cogent evidence of Section 12 exceptions.

The petitioner, a 17-year-old child in conflict with law (CICL), was implicated in a murder case arising from an assault by several persons.

The informant had not named him in the FIR; his alleged involvement emerged from a co-accused’s statement.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application, and the appellate court affirmed that decision.

The petitioner challenged both orders in revision, contending that the statutory grounds for denying bail were not established.

The High Court noted that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence, the petitioner’s implication rested on the co-accused’s statement, and the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Social Background Report (SBR) supported his release.

1. Whether the courts below were justified in denying bail to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in the absence of cogent material supporting a statutory ground for refusal.

2. Whether the impugned orders should be set aside and the petitioner released on bail.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for release on bail of a CICL, notwithstanding the nature of the alleged offence, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

Section 3 of the Act requires decisions to be guided by the child’s best interests and full development; it also treats institutional care as a measure of last resort and recognises the child’s right to restoration and reintegration, unless contrary to the child’s best interests.

No judicial precedent was relied upon.

The High Court found that the lower courts’ conclusions—that release could expose the petitioner to criminal elements or danger, or defeat the ends of justice—were unsupported by cogent material.

The petitioner’s implication was based on a co-accused’s statement, there was no eyewitness, and the SIR and SBR favoured release.

Applying Section 12 alongside the Act’s child-centred principles, the Court held that the seriousness of the allegation or gravity of the offence could not, by itself, justify refusing bail.

One bailor must be the petitioner’s parent and the other a relative without criminal antecedents who undertakes to ensure the petitioner’s care and upkeep; the petitioner must attend each date fixed by the Board.