Court clarifies that being tried as an adult does not strip juveniles of bail protections under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, but exceptions apply in terrorism-related cases involving association with known criminals.
In a significant ruling delivered on October 29, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the bail plea of Suheel Javaid Lone, a juvenile accused in a terrorism-related case, affirming the trial court's decision to deny bail. The judgment provides important clarifications on bail provisions for children in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act"), especially when the child is directed to be tried as an adult under Section 19 of the Act.
The case arose from a violent incident at the Ban Toll Plaza, Jammu, on January 31, 2020, where terrorists traveling in a truck opened fire on police and security personnel. Investigation led by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) uncovered a conspiracy involving six accused persons, including the juvenile petitioner. The juvenile, aged 17 years and 5 months at the time of the alleged offence, was found to have facilitated the movement of terrorists and maintained contact with a Pakistan-based terrorist handler linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a proscribed terrorist organization.
The Juvenile Justice Board, after a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, concluded that the petitioner possessed the mental and physical capacity and maturity to be tried as an adult. Consequently, the case was transferred to the NIA-designated trial court, which also functions as a Children's Court.
The petitioner sought bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, which ordinarily mandates release on bail for juveniles irrespective of the nature of the offence, except in cases where release would associate the juvenile with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The trial court rejected the bail application, and the petitioner appealed to the High Court.
The High Court meticulously analyzed the scope of Section 12, emphasizing that the protection of bail rights does not cease even if a child is tried as an adult under Section 19. The Court also underscored Section 8(2) of the JJ Act, which permits the High Court and Children's Court to exercise the powers of the Juvenile Justice Board, including decisions on bail.
However, the Court found that the prosecution had established reasonable grounds to apprehend that the petitioner's release could result in association with known criminals and expose him to psychological and moral danger, given his alleged contacts with terrorist handlers and co-accused involved in facilitating terrorist activities. The Court held that such material justified the rejection of bail under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act.
While recognizing the reformative and rehabilitative object of the JJ Act, the High Court affirmed that serious allegations involving terrorism and the child's role in facilitating terrorist acts could invoke statutory exceptions to bail. The Court also considered the petitioner's lengthy custody period but concluded that it was insufficient alone to warrant bail.
This ruling reinforces the principle that juveniles retain their statutory protections even when tried as adults, but exceptions apply in grave cases where the child's release could undermine justice or their well-being. It also clarifies the jurisdiction of the High Court and Children's Court in exercising Juvenile Justice Board powers.
The petitioner's bail plea was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld. The Court clarified that this decision does not prejudge the merits of the case, and the petitioner remains at liberty to apply for bail if material changes occur.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Child in conflict with law, even if directed to be tried as an adult under Sections 15, 19, does not lose protection of Section 12 relating to bail - Gravity or heinousness of offence alone is not a ground to deny bail - Bail can, however, be refused if material on record shows reasonable grounds that release would bring child into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat ends of justice - In terrorism-related case, alleged contact with Pakistan-based handler and co-accused held sufficient to attract proviso to Section 12(1).
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 2(12), 8(2), 12, 15, 19; National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 Section 21; Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 18, 39.
