Juvenile granted bail after prolonged observation, absence of antecedents, and demonstrably improving conduct.

The applicant, a 17-year-old juvenile alleged to be a person of unsound mind, was accused of taking a nine-year-old minor to a rooftop, removing the minor’s and his own underwear, and digitally penetrating the minor.

An FIR was registered as Crime No. 492/2025 under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

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

The Board rejected the applicant’s bail application, and the appellate court dismissed his appeal on 17 December 2025.

The applicant thereafter filed the present criminal revision.

He relied on his mental-health condition, treatment at Mental Hospital, Sendhri, Bilaspur, custody in the Observation Home since 26 September 2025, and absence of criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the nature of the offence, while acknowledging the absence of antecedents and the need for family supervision.

The victim’s mother, though served with notice, did not appear.

Whether the applicant/juvenile was entitled to release on bail in view of his age, alleged mental-health condition, period of stay in the Observation Home, absence of criminal antecedents, and improving conduct.

Whether the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court rejecting bail required interference in criminal revision.

The case concerned the juvenile-bail framework under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, under which release of a child in conflict with law is generally favoured unless such release is likely to bring the child into association with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The underlying allegations were under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court also exercised its revisional jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the concurrent orders rejecting bail.

The Court treated the applicant’s juvenile status and welfare as central to the bail determination.

It noted that the applicant had remained in the Observation Home since 26 September 2025, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that the social-status report disclosed no criminal antecedents.

The report further indicated that the applicant had been kept under continuous observation and that his conduct was improving.

Although the State relied on the seriousness of the alleged POCSO offence, the Court found that the applicant’s continued institutional custody was not justified in light of the absence of antecedents, the completed investigation, and the availability of supervision by his mother.

These circumstances persuaded the Court that the earlier refusals of bail warranted interference.

The orders of the Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting bail were set aside.

The applicant was directed to be released into the custody of his mother upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 through his mother, along with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court, with an undertaking to appear as and when directed.