Nature of offence cannot be a ground to deny bail to a child in conflict with law.

The petitioner, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), was accused in Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 for offences under Section 96 BNS, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, and various sections of the SC/ST Act.

The allegation involved enticing away the informant's daughter and her friend.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) determined the petitioner's age to be 17 years, 3 months, and 16 days at the time of the occurrence.

Both the JJB (order dated 30.04.2025) and the Children’s Court (judgment dated 12.06.2025) rejected the petitioner’s bail applications, citing apprehensions that release would expose him to physical or psychological danger.

The petitioner challenged these orders via the present revision petition.

1. Whether the lower courts correctly applied the statutory criteria for denying bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

2. Whether the gravity of the alleged offence can be a sole ground for refusing bail to a Child in Conflict with Law.

The court primarily applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that a juvenile shall be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release would bring them into association with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

Section 3 of the Act, emphasizing the "principle of best interest" and "institutionalization as a last resort".

Lalu Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2019), which established that the nature and gravity of the offence are irrelevant for considering the bail of a CICL.

The High Court found that the lower courts lacked a factual basis or "vision" to conclude that the petitioner’s release would expose him to danger or associate him with criminal elements.

The court noted that there was no material on record to support the finding that the ends of justice would be defeated by his release.

The Court observed that the JJ Act is child-friendly and prioritizes reformation through parental guardianship over institutionalization.

It criticized the lower courts for being influenced by the seriousness of the allegations (sexual assault), reiterating that under Section 12, the nature of the crime cannot be a ground for bail rejection.

Since the petitioner had a clean antecedent and his parents were willing to provide care, the statutory requirements for bail were met.

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the judgment of the Children’s Court dated 12.06.2025 and the JJB order dated 30.04.2025.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, provided that one bailor is a parent and the other a relative, both undertaking to ensure the child’s upkeep and appearance before the Board.