In recent years, many OTT web series and films have portrayed juvenile crime, highlighting the complexities of the debate surrounding it. These films and web series reflect public perceptions of law and crime, as well as how the legal system views these issues. One significant area of debate is bail for children in conflict with the law. With the growing number of heinous offences committed by minors, the public often feels that the severity of the crime should determine bail, and that the law allows minors to get away very easily, as in the Pune Porsche Case. However, the law dictates that the child's age and reformability take precedence. This article discusses bail for Children in Conflict with the law under Section 12 of the JJ Act, particularly emphasising one of the grounds for denying bail to children in conflict with the law, i.e., "defeat the ends of justice."
The juvenile justice system in India, established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ Act"), was established to address the needs of children requiring state intervention, protection, and care. The law categorises children into two groups: “children in conflict with the law” (CICL) and “children in need of care and protection” (CNCP). The system aims to provide protection, care and rehabilitation support, acknowledging that children's circumstances often stem from various factors that need to be addressed to improve their welfare.
The juvenile justice system, which caters to Children in Conflict with the Law (CICLs), is designed as a diversionary mechanism from the traditional criminal justice system. It provides child-friendly procedures and approaches for addressing juvenile offences, with a focus on dignity, rehabilitation and restoration. The goal is to tackle the root causes of delinquency through state intervention. This system operates under various principles, i.e., the presumption of innocence, the best interests of the child, and the belief that institutionalisation should be a last resort. It aims to promote family responsibility for the child's welfare and facilitate the child's reintegration into society.
Bail for Children in Conflict with Law
In the landscape of Indian child rights, the JJ Act establishes a distinct, rehabilitative regime for bail. Unlike general criminal law, where bail is a matter of judicial discretion under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 (formerly known as CrPC 1973), for a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL), bail is a statutory mandate.
Section 12(1) of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause that overrides the BNSS. It mandates that a juvenile shall be released on bail, regardless of whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable. The Supreme Court and various High Courts over the decades have reiterated that CICL cannot be denied bail without recording a finding on the applicability of the proviso to Section 12(1), i.e., the existence of one of the three reasonable grounds to deny bail.
The legal framework regarding bail for Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) establishes that the right to bail is consistent with the objectives of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, which prioritises the best interests of the child. The provisions of the BNSS and other relevant laws in India are not applicable to bail determinations in CICL cases. Furthermore, Sections 482 and 483 of the BNSS do not apply to bail decisions involving CICLs. As a result, Section 12 of the JJ Act takes precedence in matters of bail concerning CICLs. Therefore, the granting of bail for CICLs must be strictly governed by Section 12 of the JJ Act, rather than relying on the bail provisions detailed in the BNSS.
The factors for granting bail in juvenile justice cases differ from those applicable under the BNSS. The primary consideration in these cases is the best interest of the child, which is the most important factor in determining bail for children in conflict with the law (CICL). Bail should be granted regardless of the nature or severity of the offence committed by the child. The merits of the case are not relevant when deciding on bail. The JJ Act supports the provision of bail to CICLs.
The provision of Section 12(1) of the JJ Act specifies three situations in which bail is to be denied to the CICL. The proviso carves out three limited exceptions to the mandate of bail in juvenile justice and states that bail is to be denied in situations where the release of the CICL would –
(i) bring him into association with any known criminal,
(ii) expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) defeat the ends of justice.
The first two grounds are very clear and based on factual reports, such as a Probation Officer's Social Investigation Report or a child psychologist's report, to assess the psychological danger to a child. However, the third ground to bail, i.e., “defeat the end of justice,” is the most complex ground and open to judicial discretion.
Understanding 'Defeat the End of Justice': The Intricate One.
From the practitioner's perspective, the interpretation of "defeat the ends of justice" is the most contentious aspect of juvenile bail jurisprudence, as it often serves as the only gateway to judicial discretion in an otherwise mandatory bail regime. While Section 12(1) of the JJ Act mandates bail as a rule, the "ends of justice" proviso allows JJBs and Children's Courts to deny release if the circumstances suggest that granting bail would result in a manifest failure of the legal or rehabilitative process.
The third ground on which bail is denied to the CICL is where the release of the CICL would “defeat the ends of justice”. It is important to note that the term “ defeat the ends of justice” is not defined under the JJ Act but has been interpreted by the various High Courts over the years. More recently, many High Courts have attempted to interpret this contentious term.
It is important to note that, as the phrase “defeat the end of Justice” provides judicial discretion, it comes with responsibility. Judicial discretion is never whimsical and always operates within well-defined and foreseeable channels, even when it might appear to be conferred in unlimited terms by a statute. This discretion must be exercised not in opposition to, but in accordance with the well-established principles of law, i.e., principles of juvenile justice.
Recently, various High Courts have interpreted the phrase “defeat the ends of justice” in the context of granting bail to Children in Conflict with the Law (CICLs). This term has been understood as a broad concept that encompasses several factors related to adjudicating cases involving CICLs. These factors include the nature of the crime and the merits of the case, among others. In this context, the term 'justice' has been interpreted as fairness—not only to the CICL but also to the victim and to society as a whole.
In February 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court, in a case titled A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) vs State of Chhattisgarh, observed that bail is not an absolute right for CCL. It was observed that the end of justice must include the nature and gravity of the offence, and the end of justice be done "not only to the accused, but also to the accuser" and to society at large.
In March 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in a case titled Anjum Mehmood vs Union Territory of J&K, observed that the expression “the ends of justice” would encompass factors like the nature of the crime, the gravity of the charge, the methodology adopted by the accused, the manner of the commission of crime by him and impact on the society.
In July, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court, in a case titled X vs State of Rajasthan, observed that the interpretation of "Ends of Justice" under the JJ Act requires a "nuanced approach". Furthermore, the interest of justice requires consideration of both the juvenile's future prospects and societal interests.
In May 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case titled CCL vs State of Madhya Pradesh, observed that the phrase "ends of justice" is undoubtedly a meaningful phrase bringing within its sweep many factors, including the nature of the crime and the merits of the matter.
In October 2022, the Allahabad High Court, in the case titled Mr.X(Minor) vs State Of U.P.And Another, observed scheme of the JJ Act is not solely reformatory; it has a "twin approach" that is both reformatory and retributive to a certain extent. It further noted that in heinous crimes, the nature of the crime, the methodology adopted (e.g., enticing a child with sweets), and the manner of commission assume "ample significance" in deciding bail.
Examining "Defeat the End of Justice" in the context of Juvenile Justice principles
The bail system in the juvenile justice system requires clarity at the ground level to guide judicial discretion that runs counter to the principles of juvenile justice. Out of these three exceptional circumstances for declining bail, the most misconceived one is” defeat the ends of Justice”. This term has been interpreted by various High Courts in several cases over the decades. It is important to understand that what amounts to a defeat of the ends of justice must be construed in the context of the purpose of the JJ Act.
In light of recent interpretations of this phrase by various high courts, such as those of Chhattisgarh and Jammu and Kashmir, the Board and Children's Courts need to understand that the phrase “defeat the ends of justice” is not a proxy for the gravity of the offence. It cannot be used as a backdoor to deny bail simply because the offence is "heinous." If the JJB or Children's Court denies bail under this clause, it must provide specific, evidence-based reasons, i.e., Social Investigation Report, Social Background Report and all other relevant documents showing how the release would specifically harm the justice process or the child's reform.
Let's look into some broader interpretation of the defeat of the ends of Justice. The Delhi High Court in a case titled Master Abhishek (minor) Vs State: 2005 VI AD Delhi 18 observed that “What can be said to be the factors to determine what will defeat the ends of justice have to be located in the context of the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to meet the needs of children's care and protection and to cater to their developmental needs. This can be done by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation. Therefore, if there is a factor which requires the Court to keep the child in custody for meeting the developmental needs of the child or for his rehabilitation, or for his care and protection, then only can it be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice.”
In January, 2025, the Patna High Court, in a case titled X vs State of Bihar, observed on similar lines while interpreting “end of justice”; It held the Court shouldn't be swayed by the seriousness of the alleged offence of murder. But ends of justice in the context of the JJ Act is totally different. Furthermore, if keeping the child in custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then could it be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
It is to be observed that when bail is denied by the board or the children's court, exceptional circumstances for denying bail are often presented as routine, without any supporting evidence on record. When bail is denied to a Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL), the reasons for the denial must be documented in writing. This documentation is a mandatory requirement under Section 12. A bail order is not just a procedural formality; it must be a reasoned judicial decision that includes clear findings connected to the evidence.
A bail order that lacks consideration of reports, factual evidence, or other supporting materials would be baseless and unwarranted. Such orders can be seen as pro forma or cursory, which, in itself, constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion.
The Bail order must show that the judge has perused the record, such as SBR, SIR, and other documents, i.e., psychological or status reports, if available. It is noted by High Courts that assumptions of danger must not be based on "surmises and conjectures" but on cogent reasons. The judges need to keep in mind the principle of the JJ Act, a child may be unnecessarily institutionalised, which is a violation of the principle of "institutionalisation as a measure of last resort” and considering all circumstances of the case, keeping the child in an institution is helpful in his development, rehabilitation or protection.
The stakeholders working with CICL need to understand that bail in the juvenile justice system in India is different from the principles of bail that apply to adults under the BNSS. However, in both cases—children and adults—bail is generally the rule, while its denial is the exception. One key consideration is that the JJ Act, unlike the BNSS, is a beneficial piece of legislation that should be interpreted in a way that prioritises the welfare of the child.
The judicial discretion allowed by the JJ Act requires that Boards and Courts be conscious of the Act's welfarist framework. This means that its provisions, including those related to bail, should be interpreted and applied to promote the rehabilitation, protection, and restoration of a child's rights, rather than from a criminal justice perspective that focuses on deterrence.
Author is an Advocate practicing at Gauhati High Court. Views are personal.