MP HC Grants Bail To Juvenile In POCSO Case, Finds No Exceptional Grounds To Deny Release Under JJ Act§12

The juvenile was in custody from 21 September 2026 in connection with Crime No. 490/2026, registered for offences under Sections 64(1), 351(3), 137(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application on 9 October 2026, and the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Datia, affirmed that decision on 22 October 2026.

In revision, the juvenile relied, among other things, on the prosecutrix’s statement that she had left voluntarily and had not been enticed, the absence of evidence of sexual assault in the MLC, his lack of criminal antecedents, and a favourable Probation Officer’s report.

The State and complainant opposed the revision.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that a person who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed an offence shall ordinarily be released on bail, with or without surety, or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or the care of a fit person.

Bail may be refused only where reasonable grounds indicate that release is likely to bring the child into association with a known criminal, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice; the reasons for refusal must be recorded.

The revision was brought under Section 102 of the Act.

The High Court confirmed that the petitioner was a minor on the date of the alleged incident and assessed the lower courts’ orders against Section 12 and the Probation Officer’s report.

It found no exceptional circumstance under the statutory proviso warranting refusal of bail.

Accordingly, the lower courts’ decisions could not stand.

It directed that the juvenile be handed over to his father upon a personal bond of ₹50,000 and one solvent surety, subject to conditions including appearance when directed, appropriate care and supervision by his guardian, non-involvement in further offences, and no contact with or harassment of the complainant or prosecutrix, directly or indirectly.

The Court stated that breach of the no-contact condition would result in withdrawal of bail.