The Patna High Court has granted bail to a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) accused in a double murder case, reiterating that the seriousness or gravity of the alleged offence cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court, which had rejected the juvenile’s bail application in connection with a case registered under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the case relates to the alleged honour killing of the petitioner’s sister and the subsequent murder of the petitioner’s mother, who was stated to be an eyewitness. The petitioner, who was arrested on March 16, 2025, was declared a juvenile after the Juvenile Justice Board determined that he was 17 years, 11 months and 13 days old on the date of the alleged offence. The petitioner contended that he was 80% physically disabled and had been falsely implicated in the case.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court had rejected bail solely on account of the seriousness of the allegations without recording any material to show that his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, bring him into contact with known criminals, or defeat the ends of justice the only grounds on which bail can be denied under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Accepting the contention, the High Court observed that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act makes grant of bail the rule and refusal an exception. The Court held that a child in conflict with law can be denied bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into association with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
The Court further emphasised that the Juvenile Justice Act is a child-centric legislation founded on the principles of best interest, rehabilitation and restoration. Referring to the statutory principles embodied in Section 3 of the Act, the Court observed that institutionalisation of a child should be the last resort, and courts, acting as parens patriae, are duty-bound to prioritise the child’s reformation and rehabilitation.
The Court found that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court had primarily relied upon the enormity of the alleged offence while rejecting bail. It noted that neither forum had recorded any material or reasons to support their conclusion that the juvenile’s release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or bring him into contact with criminal elements. Holding that the gravity of the offence cannot be a standalone ground to refuse bail to a juvenile, the Court set aside both the orders.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his elder brother, subject to an undertaking to ensure his proper care and regular appearance before the Juvenile Justice Board during trial.
