Gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny bail to a Child in Conflict with Law.

The petitioner was declared a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), aged approximately 17 years and 11 months, in connection with Chhutiya P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 involving the alleged murder of his sister and mother (honour killing) under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) rejected the petitioner’s bail application on July 14, 2025, which was subsequently affirmed by the Children Court, Rohtas, on November 7, 2025.

The lower courts denied bail citing the "enormity of the offence" and vague concerns regarding the petitioner's physical and psychological danger if released.

The petitioner is 80% physically handicapped and has no prior criminal record.

1. Whether the seriousness of the allegation or the gravity of the offence is a valid ground for refusing bail to a Juvenile under the Act of 2015.

2. Whether the lower courts' finding regarding the danger to the petitioner's well-being was supported by sufficient material to satisfy the exceptions under Section 12 of the Act.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a CICL 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 danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The "Best Interest of the Child" principle under Section 3 and the precedent set in Lalu Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (2019), which established that the nature or gravity of the offence cannot be a ground to refuse bail to a CICL.

The High Court observed that the appellate court erred by focusing entirely on the "enormity of the offence" (double murder), which is legally impermissible for a juvenile.

The Court analyzed the statutory framework of the 2015 Act, noting that institutional care is a last resort and restoration to family is the priority.

It found that the JJB and Children Court failed to provide specific evidence or reasons to support the conclusion that the petitioner would face mental or psychological danger if released.

Given the petitioner's 80% physical disability, clean antecedents, and the elder brother's undertaking to provide proper supervision, the Court determined that the exceptions to the grant of bail were not met.

The Court held that the seriousness of the crime is not a consideration for bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, one being his elder brother, under the conditions that the guardian ensures proper upkeep and the petitioner attends all trial proceedings.