Juvenile entitled to bail absent statutory disqualifying circumstances and on grounds of parity with major co-accused.

The applicant, a juvenile, filed a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("the Act") challenging the judgment dated 28/01/2026 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia.

This judgment had affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's order dated 14/01/2026, which rejected the applicant's bail application under Section 12 of the Act regarding offences under Sections 103(1), 126(1), 296(A), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and a co-accused, Akshay Nicharele, exhorted the main accused to use a firearm against the deceased.

Procedurally, the co-accused Akshay (an adult) had already been granted regular bail by the High Court on 18.03.2026.

1. Whether the lower courts failed to properly appreciate the reformative object of the Juvenile Justice Act and passed the impugned orders in a cursory manner.

2. Whether there existed any "exceptional circumstances" under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act to justify the denial of bail to the juvenile.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with the co-accused and the favorable report of the Probation Officer.

The Court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which creates a statutory presumption in favor of bail for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the offence (bailable or non-bailable).

This section mandates release unless the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such release would: (a) bring the child into association with known criminals, (b) expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (c) defeat the ends of justice.

The Court analyzed the Probation Officer's report, which indicated that the juvenile's recovery from "wrong company" was possible and recommended counseling.

The Court observed that the lower courts' findings were based on "flimsy ground" and failed to consider the legislative intent of the Act, which prioritizes the child's welfare over the gravity of the offence.

It noted that since the co-accused Akshay Nicharele, who shared an identical allegation of exhortation, had been granted bail, the principle of parity was applicable.

Upon reviewing the record, the Court found no evidence of the "exceptional circumstances" required by the proviso to Section 12 to deny bail.

The Court further accepted the undertaking of the juvenile’s father to ensure the child’s maintenance, well-being, and cooperation with the legal process.

The Court held that the juvenile was entitled to bail and directed that he be handed over to the custody of his father upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety.

The release was made subject to several conditions, including strict supervision by the father, monthly reporting to the Probation Officer, and a prohibition on contacting known criminals.