MP HC Releases Child Accused In Jhabua Murder Case To Mother’s Care, Citing No Prior Record And No Clear Section 12 Ground To Deny Bail

The child, alleged to have participated with adult co-accused in a house trespass and assault resulting in a serious head injury, was charged under Sections 296(a), 115(2), 351(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Juvenile Justice Board rejected his application for release under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), and the appellate court affirmed that decision.

The child challenged both orders under Section 102 of the JJ Act, arguing that the statutory grounds for denying bail were not established.

Section 12(1) of the JJ Act provides that a child alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence shall ordinarily be released on bail, with or without surety, or placed under the supervision or care of a specified person. Release may be refused only where reasonable grounds indicate that it 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.

The Court applied the principle that bail is the rule and refusal the exception, and that the gravity of the offence alone does not justify denying bail under the Act.

The Social Investigation Report described the child’s conduct in the Observation Home as satisfactory and recorded no prior criminal antecedents or specific indication that he was a hardened or habitual offender; although it noted deficiencies in parental control and association with adults, the Court found these insufficient, on the material before it, to establish a statutory exception.

The Board and appellate court had relied principally on the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of repetition, but those considerations did not, without more, satisfy Section 12’s exceptions.

Given the mother’s willingness to assume responsibility and the Act’s rehabilitative purpose, the Court concluded that continued detention was not justified.

It directed that the order be transmitted to the Juvenile Justice Board and the Observation Home for compliance.