Bail Not An Absolute Right For Juveniles Under JJ Act, 'Ends Of Justice' A Key Test Under Section 12: Chhattisgarh High Court

Justice Arvind Kumar Verma referred to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which provides that— when a child is alleged to have committed an offence and is brought before a Juvenile Justice Board, such person shall be released on bail or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.

Proviso to Section 12(1) prescribes that if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that granting bail is likely to associate the person with any known criminal, or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice, then such person shall not be released.

In light of the aforesaid provisions, the Single-Judge explained,

“… the consideration for grant of bail to juvenile delinquents though is entirely different than that of normal consideration of granting bail but still the Court has to consider whether their release would defeat the 'ends of justice'. The words 'ends of justice' should be confined to the fact which shows that grant of bail itself is likely to a result in injustice and as per the exception provided under Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015 if the Court finds that release would defeat the 'ends of justice' then bail can be denied to a juvenile.

Although, various High Courts in most of the cases while dealing with the provisions of grant of bail as per Section 12 of the Act, 2015 have adopted an approach that a juvenile can be considered to be released on bail irrespective of gravity of offence but I am not convinced that the bail can be claimed by a juvenile as a matter of right and can be granted to the juvenile without considering the gravity of offence and nature of crime committed by him. As per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, it is clear that there was no intent of the legislature to consider the grant of bail to a juvenile as his absolute right and that is why it carved out an exception under which bail can be denied, otherwise there was no occasion to attach proviso with Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015.”

“No doubt, the Juvenile Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reformation of the juvenile/child in conflict with law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser. Thus, while considering the room for granting the bail to a juvenile, the Court has to consider the surrounding facts and circumstances”, the Court added.

Background

The observations were made in a case where the juvenile-appellant attacked the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon, leading to his death. He was denied bail by the JJB, and his appeal before the Appellate Court was also rejected.

Aggrieved, he approached the High Court, where he argued that the lower court failed to consider that keeping the appellant in custody would expose him to criminal influence and psychological harm, thereby defeating the ends of justice. He further submitted that deceased was the initial aggressor and the applicant was attacked first. He further submitted that the Court failed to consider that Section 3(i) of JJ Act presumes a child to be innocent of criminal intent up to the age of 18 years. He lastly argued that he belonged to a poor family with no criminal antecedents, and continued detention would adversely affect his mental well-being during his stay in the observation home.

In contrast, the State opposed the bail and submitted that the impugned orders had rightly denied bail to the juvenile considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed.

The Court noted that the alleged incident occurred at night and the appellant allegedly played a primary and active role in the occurrence of the event, wherein a sharp-edged weapon was used to cause serious injuries to the deceased. Even the Social Investigation Report emphasised the necessity of supervision and corrective measures, and further demonstrated that the appellant was under adverse influence and there existed a likelihood of his coming into association with undesirable elements if released.

Denying bail, the Court held,

“Philosophical reflection reveals such acts as profound societal ruptures-violating the innate dignity and inviolabilities of childhood, echoing Kantian imperatives against treating humans as means, and underscoring eudemonia as communal virtue demanding collective vigilance to restore moral order.”

Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed the revision petition and concluded that releasing him may defeat the ends of justice.

Case Number: CRR No. 1503 of 2025

Case Title: A (Juvenile - Conflict With Law) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order