Juvenile is entitled to bail under Section 12 absent statutory grounds for denial.

The applicant, a 17-year-old juvenile, was apprehended on 22 May 2026 in connection with Crime No. 329/2026 registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, for an offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution alleged that 1 kilogram 630 grams of ganja, valued at ₹81,500, and ₹2,500 in cash were recovered from a blue bag allegedly carried by the applicant near a vacant plot at Matkodwapara, Changorabhatha, Raipur.

The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, rejected the applicant’s bail application on 29 May 2026. The Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, affirmed that order in Criminal Appeal No. 213/2026 on 2 July 2026. The applicant consequently filed the present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The applicant relied on her age, absence of criminal antecedents, good conduct in the Observation Home, and the alleged absence of conscious possession. The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the Social Investigation Report disclosed no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant, being a juvenile in conflict with law, was entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, notwithstanding the allegation under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act?

Whether the statutory exceptions under Section 12—likelihood of association with a known criminal, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat of the ends of justice—were established against the applicant?

Whether the concurrent orders rejecting bail required interference in revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?

The Court applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates the release of a child alleged to be in conflict with law on bail, unless 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.

Section 102 of the Act confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court over orders passed in proceedings under the Act.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, concerning contravention involving cannabis; however, the allegation under the NDPS Act did not displace the distinct and protective bail framework applicable to juveniles under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court found that the applicant was admittedly about 17 years old and therefore entitled to consideration under the juvenile-specific bail mandate.

The Social Investigation Report recorded no criminal antecedents and reflected good conduct in the Observation Home.

The prosecution produced no specific material showing that release would expose the applicant to any of the three statutory risks under Section 12: association with known criminals, moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat of the ends of justice.

Accordingly, notwithstanding the allegation of recovery of ganja under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, the Court held that the statutory exceptions to release on bail were not attracted.

The lower courts had therefore failed to properly apply the mandate of Section 12, warranting interference in revision.

It directed that the applicant be released from the Observation Home and placed in her parents’ custody upon her mother or father furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur, together with an undertaking to produce her as directed.

The parents were directed to ensure her care, protection, education, welfare, and appearance before the Board on every date fixed. The Board was directed to ensure her welfare and continued participation in the proceedings.