Hostile Testimony of the Victim Overrides Exceptions to Bail Under the Juvenile Justice Act

The Appellant was accused of gang rape under Sections 376(D) and 120(B) of the IPC, following an FIR lodged on 08.10.2023.

Though the Appellant was found to be a juvenile (16 years, 10 months) by the Juvenile Justice Board, he was sent to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult under Section 15 of the J.J. Act.

His regular bail application was rejected on 08.10.2025 by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna, on the grounds that prior bail and revision petitions had been dismissed.

The Appellant challenged this order, noting that during the trial, the victim/prosecutrix failed to identify him and stated he was not involved in the offence.

1. Whether a juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to bail when the star witness (victim) provides evidence exonerating the accused during the trial.

2. Whether the statutory bar or exceptions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act apply when the prosecution's case lacks foundational evidence.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act mandates that a juvenile shall be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release would bring them into association with known criminals or expose them to moral danger.

The detention of a juvenile in an Observation Home presupposes a valid prosecution case; without evidence, such detention constitutes a miscarriage of justice and a violation of the right to liberty.

The Court reasoned that Section 12 of the J.J. Act establishes bail as the rule and denial as the exception.

In this case, the court observed that the "star witness" (the victim) had already been examined and categorically deposed that the Appellant was neither present at the place of occurrence nor involved in the offence.

The Court agreed with the Amicus Curiae that while Section 12 aims at reformation, reformation presupposes the commission of an offense.

Since the victim essentially gave the Appellant a "clean chit," the prosecution case no longer stood, rendering further detention in an Observation Home or institution an act of "grave injustice".

It held that there were no grounds to deny bail given the victim's testimony.

The Court directed the Appellant to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with an undertaking from his father to monitor his habits, prevent contact with criminals, and ensure his appearance in court.

The Lower Court Records were ordered to be returned forthwith.