Juvenile bail under Section 12 cannot be denied absent statutory exceptions supported by material.

The revisionist, a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, was accused, along with three co-accused, of conspiring to strangle the deceased to death.

The Juvenile Justice Board, District Haridwar, rejected her bail application on 6 September 2025, and the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (POCSO), Haridwar, dismissed her appeal on 13 October 2025.

She thereafter filed the present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”).

The revisionist relied on the Social Investigation Report, which indicated that she required proper guidance, had good conduct, no bad habits, and had not been involved in unacceptable activities.

She had remained detained in Nari Niketan for a considerable period.

Whether the revisionist, being a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, was entitled to bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

Whether any of the statutory exceptions to release on bail existed—namely, likelihood of association with a known criminal, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or frustration of the ends of justice.

Whether the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court refusing bail were liable to be set aside.

The Court applied Section 12 of the JJ Act, which mandates release on bail of a person apparently believed to be a child in conflict with law, with or without surety, or placement under the supervision of a probation officer or fit person, irrespective of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law.

Bail may be denied only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice; reasons for denial must be recorded.

The Court also applied the child-centred, reformative and rehabilitative objectives of the JJ Act, including the principle that decisions concerning a child must primarily serve the child’s best interests.

The revision was maintainable under Section 102 of the JJ Act.

The Court found that the revisionist was undisputedly a juvenile when the alleged offence occurred and that her entitlement to bail had to be assessed under the statutory presumption in favour of release under Section 12.

The Social Investigation Report did not disclose any circumstance suggesting that her release would expose her to danger, place her in association with known criminals, or lead to repetition of the offence.

Nor was there material demonstrating that her release would defeat the ends of justice.

Considering the Act’s reformative and rehabilitative purpose and the absence of adverse material, the Court held that the statutory grounds for refusing bail were not established.

The judgment dated 13 October 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (POCSO), Haridwar, and the order dated 6 September 2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar, were set aside.

The revisionist was directed to be released from Nari Niketan on bail upon her mother/natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board.

Conditions included continuation of studies, non-association with known criminals, proper care and supervision by the guardian, abstention from criminal activity, and cooperation with and appearance before the Board unless personal appearance was exempted.