J&K HC Upholds Bail Denial To Child Tried As Adult In Ban Toll Plaza Attack Case, Citing Alleged Contact With Pakistan-Based JeM Handler

The appellant, who was 17 years, 5 months and 11 days old at the time of the alleged offence, was accused of facilitating the movement of terrorists and conspiring in an attack on security personnel.

Following a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”), he was directed to be tried as an adult; the Children’s Court rejected his application for bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

He appealed that order under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, read with Sections 101 and 102 of the JJ Act.

He had been in custody since 9 February 2020, and the trial remained pending

Section 12(1) of the JJ Act establishes release on bail as the ordinary rule for a child in conflict with law, whether the alleged offence is bailable or non-bailable; bail may be refused only where reasonable grounds support a belief 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, and reasons for refusal must be recorded

Under Section 8(2), the powers conferred on the Juvenile Justice Board may also be exercised by the High Court and the Children’s Court when proceedings come before them under Section 19 or in appeal, revision or otherwise

A direction that a child be tried as an adult under Section 19 does not, by itself, deprive that person of the protections available under Section 12

The Court held that the appellant’s status as one directed to be tried as an adult did not remove his entitlement to have bail considered under Section 12, and that the Children’s Court could exercise the relevant power under Section 8(2).

Although the seriousness of the alleged offences alone could not justify refusal, the prosecution’s allegations that the appellant had maintained contact with a Pakistan-based handler and a co-accused, and had facilitated the movement of terrorists, were relevant to the statutory exceptions.

The Court considered those allegations, alongside the appellant’s period in custody, and concluded that the identified apprehensions had a reasonable basis on the material before it; the length of custody did not, in the circumstances, warrant interference with the bail refusal.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 17 November 2025, while permitting the appellant to seek bail afresh if circumstances materially changed