Criminal Antecedents and Lack of Parental Control Justify Denying Juvenile Bail to Prevent Recidivism and Danger.

The petitioners, X1 and X2, were declared Children in Conflict with Law (CICL) in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 597 of 2024, involving charges under Sections 103(1) (murder) and 61(2)(a) (criminal conspiracy) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that X2 and others shot and killed the informant’s father, while X1’s involvement transpired through a co-accused’s confession.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the Children’s Court rejected their bail applications, finding the petitioners incorrigible.

X1 had one criminal antecedent and had been in custody since September 2024; X2 had a history of 11 serious criminal cases.

1. Whether the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, applied to X1 and X2 to justify the denial of bail despite their status as juveniles.

2. Whether the criminal antecedents and the Social Investigation Report (SIR) provided reasonable grounds to believe that the release of the petitioners would expose them to moral or physical danger or defeat the ends of justice.

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 unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the release would bring the child into association with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court observed that despite his juvenile status, a history of 11 serious criminal cases indicated that previous grants of bail had no deterrent effect and that he continued to associate with criminal elements.

The SIR further confirmed that X2’s guardians lacked control over him, suggesting that his release would indeed be "fraught with danger" and defeat the ends of justice.

Regarding X1, the Court noted he was not named in the FIR, held only one antecedent, and had a mother willing to provide active supervision.

The Court found that X1's situation did not meet the high threshold for denial under the Section 12 proviso, emphasizing the scope for his rehabilitation.

The Court allowed the revision for X1, setting aside the orders dated 06.05.2025 and 07.03.2025.

X1 was ordered to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, including a parent, subject to conditions of regular appearance before the Board and strict parental supervision.