Gravity of allegations alone cannot override Section 12’s presumption of bail for children in conflict with law.

The Juvenile Justice Board declined the revisionist’s application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, by order dated 03.06.2026.

The appellate court dismissed his appeal on 30.06.2026, and he challenged both orders in revision.

He argued that neither court had found any of the statutory grounds for denying bail and that the Social Investigation Report disclosed no such ground.

During the revision, the High Court granted him bail on 22.07.2026.

1. Whether the courts below were justified in denying bail without recording a specific finding that an exception under the proviso to Section 12 of the Act applied.

2. Whether the pending prayer for bail required further consideration after the High Court had already granted bail during the revision.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall ordinarily be released on bail, with or without surety, or placed under the supervision or care specified in the section.

Bail may be denied only where 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 Court also referred to Section 3 of the Act, whose principles include presumption of innocence, dignity, safety, the child’s best interests, rehabilitation and institutionalisation as a measure of last resort.

The courts below had not recorded a specific and cogent finding bringing the revisionist’s case within any of the exceptions in the proviso to Section 12.

The seriousness of the allegations alone could not replace the statutory grounds for denying bail.

Further, the Social Investigation Report did not indicate that release would create any of the specified risks and instead identified a need for care, supervision and rehabilitation.

The Court noted conflicting material concerning the victim’s age but left that issue to be determined by the competent authority, making no finding on its merits.

Because bail had already been granted during the revision, the bail prayer no longer required a separate determination.

It directed that the Juvenile Justice Board proceed independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations in the revision.