Juvenile bail is the rule; denial requires reasonable grounds under a statutory exception.

The petitioner, a juvenile aged 17 years, 9 months and 2 days at the time of the alleged offence, was accused in Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No. 26/2026 of offences under Sections 127(2), 65(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 6/10 of the POCSO Act.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application on 29 April 2026, and the appellate court affirmed that decision on 16 June 2026, reasoning that release could expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and bring him into contact with criminals.

In revision, the petitioner relied on his father’s willingness to provide undertakings and on the case diary’s record that the victim had refused a medical check-up.

The petitioner had been in the observation home since 14 March 2026.

Whether the courts below were justified in refusing bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, on the stated risks of criminal association or moral, physical or psychological danger.

Whether the petitioner should be released on bail subject to safeguards and supervision by his natural guardian and the Probation Officer.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 makes release on bail the rule for a child alleged to be in conflict with law, with refusal permitted only where there are reasonable grounds to believe 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 the seriousness of the alleged offence and the child’s age—including where a child above 16 is alleged to have committed a heinous offence—do not, by themselves, provide a basis to deny bail under Section 12.

The lower courts had cited possible criminal association and danger to the petitioner but had not identified the factual basis for those conclusions or adequately addressed the statutory grounds for refusing bail.

The High Court found those conclusions unsupported by reasonable grounds.

It also considered the father’s willingness to undertake responsibility for the petitioner’s conduct and welfare, and imposed conditions addressing the identified risks, including restrictions on contact with known criminals, continued education, and monthly reporting to the Probation Officer.

It directed the petitioner’s release on bail upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two relative sureties, subject to undertakings concerning the petitioner’s safety, conduct and education, monthly reporting to the Probation Officer, and the Probation Officer’s monitoring and periodic reporting to the Board.