Juvenile entitled to bail after prolonged custody, good conduct, family supervision, and filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicant, a juvenile aged approximately 16 years, was alleged to have participated with co-accused persons in abusing and threatening Harishankar Singh, looting ₹500 from him, and assaulting him with a knife when he demanded return of the money.

Harishankar sustained a chest injury, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 296, 351(2), 309, 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.

The Board rejected the applicant’s bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, on 6 March 2026, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal on 4 April 2026.

The applicant thereafter filed the present revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act, asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody in the Observation Home since 19 November 2025, and likely delay in conclusion of trial.

The Probation Officer’s social status report stated that the applicant had been in the Observation Home for ten months, had good conduct and behaviour, and ought to be placed under the supervision of family members.

Whether the applicant/juvenile was entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, despite rejection by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court?

Whether the applicant’s prolonged stay in the Observation Home, good conduct, family supervision, and filing of the charge-sheet justified interference in revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act?

The Court applied Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which confers revisional jurisdiction over orders passed in proceedings under the Act, and Section 12 of the JJ Act, which governs bail to a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

In assessing the revision, the Court considered the juvenile justice principles reflected in the applicant’s age, rehabilitation, family supervision, social status report, conduct, duration of custody, and the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the Probation Officer’s report materially supported release: the applicant had maintained good conduct, had remained in the Observation Home for approximately ten months, and was suitable to be supervised by his family.

The Court also considered that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued institutional custody during investigation, and noted the prolonged custody and likely delay in trial.

On a cumulative consideration of these factors, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the earlier orders refusing bail required interference in revision.

The orders dated 4 April 2026 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, and 6 March 2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, were set aside.

The applicant was directed to be released into the custody of his parents upon the mother or father furnishing a personal bail bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, and undertaking to produce the applicant as and when required.