Declared juveniles must be immediately transferred from adult prisons to observation homes to prevent constitutional infractions.

The appellant was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Agra, on June 23, 2023, as he was 16 years, 11 months, and 21 days old on the date of the alleged offense (double murder and robbery)

Despite this declaration, the appellant remained incarcerated in a regular adult jail for over two and a half years

His bail applications were successively rejected by the JJB, the Special Additional Sessions Judge, and the Allahabad High Court

The lower courts justified the denial of bail based on the "heinous" nature of the crime and the apprehension that the appellant might associate with criminals or face moral danger if released

During the Supreme Court proceedings, the State admitted the lapse in transferring the juvenile to an observation home and agreed to pay ₹5 lakhs in compensation for the wrongful detention

1. Whether the High Court and lower courts were justified in denying bail to a declared juvenile based primarily on the nature of the offense and perceived moral danger

2. Whether the continued detention of a declared juvenile in a regular adult jail violates Article 21 of the Constitution and the mandate of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

3. What is the mandatory procedure under the JJ Act for determining whether a juvenile between 16 and 18 years should be tried as an adult

The Court primarily applied the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

Section 12 mandates that a juvenile shall generally be released on bail unless specific disqualifications exist

Sections 15, 18, and 19 establish a mandatory two-tiered assessment (preliminary assessment by the JJB and independent evaluation by the Children’s Court) to determine if a child aged 16–18 should be tried as an adult for a heinous offense

The Court also relied on Article 21 of the Constitution regarding the right to life and liberty and the doctrine of "Constitutional Tort" for awarding compensation for wrongful detention

The Court noted that the JJB and lower courts disregarded the District Probation Officer’s (DPO) report, which found the appellant’s behavior normal and suggested reform through a "positive family environment" rather than detention

The High Court’s conclusion that the appellant was being tried as an adult was found to be legally erroneous because no preliminary assessment under Section 15 or transfer order under Section 18(3) had been passed

The Court reasoned that once a person is declared a juvenile, the statutory framework focusing on rehabilitation and reformative measures must prevail, and the "disgusting" nature of the offense cannot be the sole ground for detention unless the Section 15 assessment process is followed

The Court criticized the systemic "insensitivity" of the stakeholders, holding that the failure to transfer a declared juvenile from a regular jail to an observation home is a grave violation of fundamental rights

The Court confirmed the appellant's release on bail and recorded the State’s compliance in paying ₹5 lakhs as compensation for the constitutional tort committed against the juvenile

The Court directed the Registry to circulate the judgment and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prepared by the Allahabad High Court to all Chief Justices of High Courts, Chief Secretaries of States, and Judicial Academies to ensure the prompt transfer of juveniles from adult jails to observation homes and to sensitize judicial officers