Institutional care is a last resort if Social Investigation Reports do not support statutory exceptions to bail.

Two juveniles (Petitioners) were apprehended in connection with Crime No. 500/2025 involving allegations of rape under Sections 64(2), 65(1), 70(2), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Sections 3/4, 7/8, and 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on December 4, 2025, an adult co-accused (Dashrath) forced the victim to consume liquor, and while she was unconscious, the two juveniles committed rape.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Ujjain, and the Children’s Court rejected the bail applications, citing the proviso to Section 12 of the JJ Act, suggesting that release might expose the juveniles to moral or psychological danger.

The Petitioners challenged these orders via a criminal revision.

1. Whether the JJB and the Children’s Court were justified in denying bail to the juveniles based on the exceptions carved out in the proviso to Section 12 of the JJ Act.

2. Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding the "moral and psychological danger" to the juveniles were in conformity with the Social Investigation Report (SIR).

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a juvenile shall be released on bail unless there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the person into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger.

Fundamental principles of the JJ Act, specifically the principle that institutional care is a measure of last resort.

The High Court scrutinized the Social Investigation Report (SIR) submitted by the Probation Officer, which revealed that the juveniles had no prior criminal exposure and belonged to simple farming families with low educational backgrounds.

The SIR indicated that the juveniles acted under the influence or "unspoken pressure" of an adult relative and lacked an understanding of the consequences of their actions.

The Court observed that while the lower courts denied bail citing psychological danger, the SIR actually recommended rehabilitation, psychological assessment, and counseling rather than continued detention.

Consequently, the Court found that the findings of the JJB and Children’s Court were not in conformity with the SIR or the fundamental principle that institutionalization should be the last resort.

It held that the juveniles are entitled to bail and directed their release into the custody of their respective guardians upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each.

The Court imposed conditions requiring the guardians to ensure the juveniles' education, prevent association with criminals, and mandated periodic vigilance by a Probation Officer, noting that any adverse activity would result in the automatic cancellation of bail.