The Jharkhand High Court has held that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and cannot be denied on a mere apprehension that the juvenile may come into contact with known criminals unless there is material supporting such a conclusion.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh and the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Hazaribagh, refusing bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner, Sonu Saw, was aged about 17 years at the time of the alleged incident and was in custody since 12.01.2026. He was accused in Lohsinghna P.S. Case No.01/2026 for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2026.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation against him was that he had broken the windscreen of a Bolero car. It was further submitted that the social investigation report contained nothing adverse against him. The petitioner was a Class XI student and his father was willing to undertake responsibility for his conduct and ensure that he did not associate with known criminals. The State opposed bail, submitting that the petitioner was an accomplice of other persons, that one person had died and two others had suffered injuries.

The Court noted that the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court had rejected bail on the apprehension that the petitioner would come into contact with known criminals and would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger if released. The Court examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides the statutory framework for bail to juveniles.

The Court observed that Section 12 overrides the bail provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law and that bail to a juvenile is the rule, while refusal is an exception. A juvenile can be denied bail only where there are reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to:

(i) bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal;

(ii) expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

(iii) defeat the ends of justice.

The Court found that although the lower courts had relied upon the apprehension that the petitioner would come into contact with known criminals, the social investigation report contained nothing adverse against him. The Court held:

“In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and learned courts have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist.”

The Court accordingly set aside the orders dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Hazaribagh and 24.02.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh.

The revision petition was allowed and the petitioner, who had been in custody since 12.01.2026, was directed to be released on bail on the assurance and surety of his natural guardian/father, subject to the conditions imposed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Vishwanath Moon, Advocate; Mr. Ritesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate