Court sets aside lower courts' orders denying bail citing lack of material to show risk to juvenile, imposes conditions to ensure protection and rehabilitation
In a significant ruling on October 6, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court granted bail to a 17-year-old juvenile accused in a criminal case involving property damage, underscoring the principle that bail for juveniles is the rule rather than the exception under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court, led by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge which had refused bail on the apprehension that the juvenile would associate with known criminals and face moral, physical, or psychological danger.
The juvenile, identified as Sonu Saw and represented through his father Vijay Kumar Gupta, was accused of breaking the windshield of a Bolero car. The case, registered as Lohsinghna P.S. Case No.01/2026, involved sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 324(4), 324(6), 109(1), and 103(1), reflecting the seriousness of the alleged offence. Despite this, the social investigation report submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board disclosed no adverse findings against the juvenile.
The lower courts had denied bail primarily due to speculative concerns that the juvenile might come into contact with criminals or be exposed to various dangers if released. However, the High Court noted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail provisions override those of the general criminal law, and bail can only be refused if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would lead to association with criminals, expose the juvenile to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Mere apprehension without material evidence is insufficient.
Justice Dwivedi emphasized that Section 12 applies without discrimination to all juveniles in conflict with law, reinforcing that refusal of bail is an exception. The Court further highlighted the undertakings furnished by the juvenile's father, who agreed to supervise his son's conduct, prevent exposure to harmful influences, and ensure continuation of education.
In granting bail, the Court imposed specific conditions: the juvenile is to be released through his natural guardian/father upon furnishing bond and sureties; the guardian must ensure the juvenile's good behaviour and protection from danger; the juvenile must continue his studies and constructive activities; and both must report monthly to the Probation Officer. The Probation Officer is tasked with strict monitoring and submission of periodic social investigation reports to the Juvenile Justice Board.
This judgment reinforces the rehabilitative and welfare-oriented approach of the Juvenile Justice Act, balancing the need for accountability with the protection and development of young offenders. The Court's decision underscores that denial of bail without substantive reasons contravenes statutory mandates and principles of justice.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Bail to juvenile is the rule and refusal is an exception - In absence of material showing that release would bring juvenile into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat ends of justice, bail cannot be denied - Mere apprehension is insufficient, particularly when social investigation report contains nothing adverse.
Statutory provision(s): Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section 12, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 324(4), 324(6), 109(1), 103(1)
XXX v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994109
