Juvenile bail may be denied only on the specific grounds enumerated in Section 12.

The petitioner was declared a juvenile in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No. 119/2025, registered under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He was aged 17 years, 9 months and 29 days at the time of the alleged offence and had been in custody since 17 November 2025.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal.

The petitioner challenged both orders in revision.

A Social Investigation Report had been received, with no adverse remarks against him; his father was willing to provide undertakings concerning his care and conduct.

1. Whether the orders refusing bail to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, were legally sustainable

2. Whether the record disclosed reasonable grounds to refuse bail on any of the statutory exceptions under Section 12

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 governs bail for a child alleged to be in conflict with law and overrides inconsistent bail provisions in other laws.

Bail is the rule and refusal is the exception; bail may be denied 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 do not, by themselves, justify refusal of bail under Section 12.

The Court found that the lower courts’ refusal rested on the heinousness of the allegation and apprehensions of association with criminals or danger to the petitioner, rather than on material establishing reasonable grounds for any Section 12 exception.

The Social Investigation Report contained no adverse remark, and the petitioner’s father was prepared to provide safeguards and undertakings.

In the absence of supporting material, the Court held that the statutory grounds for refusing bail had not been made out.

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