The gravity of an offence cannot be a ground for denying bail to a juvenile under Section 12.

The petitioner, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), was accused of rape and assault of a six-year-old girl under Section 64 of the B.N.S., 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act

The Juvenile Justice (JJ) Board, Purnea, determined the petitioner’s age to be 13 years, 1 month, and 9 days at the time of the occurrence

The JJ Board rejected the bail plea on June 3, 2025, which was subsequently affirmed by the Children’s Court, Purnea, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 via order dated November 3, 2025

The petitioner challenged these orders through this revision petition, asserting false implication due to a land dispute and a clean social investigation report

Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prohibits the disclosure of a CICL's identity

Bail for juveniles is governed by Section 12 of the Act, which mandates release unless it is shown that the child would come into contact with known criminals or their release would expose them to moral or psychological danger

general principles under Section 3, specifically the "principle of best interest" [Section 3(iv)], institutional care as a "measure of last resort" [Section 3(xii)], and the "principle of repatriation and restoration" [Section 3(xiii)]

The court reasoned that the lower courts erred by focusing on the "seriousness and gravity of the offence" rather than the statutory criteria for denying bail to a minor

Upon reviewing the record, the court found no evidence that the petitioner's release would bring him into contact with criminals or defeat the ends of justice

The court noted the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the favorable Social Investigation Report (SIR), where neighbors gave positive opinions

Applying the parens patriae doctrine, the court emphasized that reformation and rehabilitation are the primary goals, and the father’s undertaking to ensure the child’s welfare mitigated concerns regarding the child's future conduct

The court held that the CICL is entitled to bail as the statutory exceptions for denial were not met.

The petitioner was ordered to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one being a parent, subject to conditions regarding the child's care and regular appearance before the Board

The Registry was further directed to mask the petitioner's identity as "X1" in all records