Juvenile bail cannot be denied on mere apprehension absent reasonable grounds under Section 12.

The petitioner was approximately 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident and faced charges arising from Lohsinghna P.S. Case No. 01/2026.

The allegation attributed to him was that he broke the windshield of a Bolero vehicle; the petitioner relied on witness statements and a social investigation report that disclosed nothing adverse against him

The Juvenile Justice Board refused bail on 24 February 2026, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal on 26 March 2026, citing concerns about association with criminals and exposure to danger.

He challenged those orders in revision before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner, as a child in conflict with law, could be denied bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, absent reasonable grounds for one of the statutory exceptions.

2. Whether the bail-refusal orders were sustainable where the social investigation report was not adverse and the courts’ concerns were unsupported by material or adequate reasons.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, makes bail the general rule for a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

Bail may be refused only where reasonable grounds support a finding 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.

The Court stated that Section 12 governs notwithstanding the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, and that its exceptions apply without discrimination.

The High Court found that the lower courts had relied on apprehensions that the petitioner might associate with criminals or face danger, but the social investigation report contained no adverse material against him.

In the absence of evidence establishing reasonable grounds for a statutory exception, and given the failure to adequately justify refusal under the three contingencies in Section 12, the bail-refusal orders could not stand.

It directed the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing the prescribed bond and sureties, subject to conditions requiring parental undertakings, continued education and constructive activities, monthly reporting to the Probation Officer, and monitoring by that officer.