Gravity of offence alone is no ground to deny bail to a juvenile under Section 12.

On January 10, 2026, a firing incident occurred near the house of one Subhash Agarwal in Datia, resulting in the death of Surendra Yadav.

Crime No. 15/2026 was registered for offences including murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act.

The juvenile applicant was apprehended on January 17, 2026.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Datia, rejected his bail application on February 25, 2026, a decision subsequently affirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, in a criminal appeal dated March 10, 2026.

The applicant challenged these orders via the present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act").

Whether the JJB and the Appellate Court were justified in denying bail to the juvenile primarily based on the gravity and seriousness of the alleged offence.

Whether there existed any specific material to satisfy the statutory exceptions under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act to warrant the denial of bail.

The court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a juvenile "shall" be released on bail regardless of the nature of the offence (bailable or non-bailable).

The rule establishes that bail is the norm and can only be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe the release would: (a) bring the person into association with known criminals; (b) expose the person to moral, physical, or psychological danger; or (c) defeat the ends of justice.

The Court observed that the lower courts rejected the bail application primarily due to the "seriousness of the alleged offence".

However, the Court reasoned that under Section 12 of the Act, gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for denial unless it fits within the three specific statutory exceptions.

Upon perusing the record and the Probation Officer’s report dated March 24, 2026, the Court noted that the report suggested the possibility of improvement in the child’s conduct under family supervision.

The Court found no specific material to demonstrate that the juvenile’s release would lead to criminal association or expose him to danger.

Consequently, the Court held that the continued detention was unjustified as no exceptional circumstances were present to override the mandatory provision of Section 12.

It held that the juvenile must be released into the custody of his natural guardian (father) upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

The Court imposed several conditions, including that the juvenile remain under the supervision of his father, report to the Probation Officer monthly, and that the father provide an undertaking to keep the juvenile away from known criminals and ensure his appearance before the JJB.