Bail Is The Rule For Juveniles Even If Tried As Adults; Gravity Of Offence No Ground To Deny Bail Under JJ Act: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court held that bail is the rule for a child in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (“the Act”) even if the Juvenile was being tried as an “Adult Accused” before the Children's Court.

While setting aside orders that rejected bail application of the juvenile petitioner accused of murder, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand affirmed that the seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of juvenile were not relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

“Even a child who is of the age of 16 years or above and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015… Section 12 is applicable to all juveniles, in conflict with law, without any discrimination of any nature.”

The petitioner was 16 years and 2 months old at the time of the incident. He and other co-accused were making reels of juggling weapon from one hand to another, and while doing so, the gun was shot, and the deceased died due to the bullet injury.

Based on the preliminary assessment of the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act, the petitioner was sent to the Children's Court to be tried as an Adult Accused.

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed against the order of the Children's Court in which the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging rejection of his bail, filed under Section 12 of the Act, was further rejected.

It was the case of the petitioner that the bail application of an accused under the Act had to be decided within the parameters under Section 12 of the Act, and the gravity of the offence need not be looked into.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 12 of the Act that talked about bail to a person who was apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law, and stated that as per the provision, bail to the Juvenile was the rule and the refusal was an exception which could be exercised only in the following three conditions:

1) Release was likely to bring that person in association with known criminals; 2) release would expose the person to moral, physical or psychological danger; 3) release would defeat the ends of justice.

It was further held that the ends of justice being talked about in this provision was very different from the one used in the context of penal statutes. It had to be ascertained based on the objective of the Act which was to reform and rehabilitate the juveniles and not to punish them. Hence, if keeping the child in custody was helpful in his development and rehabilitation, then it could be concluded that his/her release would defeat the ends of justice.

The Court further highlighted that the section also revealed that the seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile were not relevant considerations for denial of bail.

“As such, Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is in consonance with the purpose and object of the Act, providing for mandatory bail to a juvenile in conflict with law unless any of the grounds, as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 are present, so that the child is re-united with his family at the earliest opportunity and the protection, development, reformation and rehabilitation of the child is ensured… Hence, under the Act of 2015, a child in conflict with law is not expected to be treated as an adult offender. The J.J. Boards/Courts are required to adopt a fundamentally different approach while dealing with the juveniles in conflict with law”

The Could held that the JJ Boards/Court were expected to deal with such juveniles with sensibility and responsibility, keeping in mind the objective of the Act which was to reform and rehabilitate. And society would be ruined if such children were dealt with punitive approach.

Furthering observations on Section 12, it was stated that the denial of bail had to be reasoned, based on facts and circumstances. The Social Investigation Report was one of the most important and mandatory considerations. The Board was expected to know not only about the offence committed but also the socio-economic conditions under which it was committed.

“The mere gravity of the offense is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for refusal, unless it is demonstrated that detention is necessary for the child's rehabilitation, protection, or to prevent interference with the judicial process… Even if a Child In Conflict With Law is transferred for trial as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015, his bail application shall be entertained under Section 12 of the Act of 2015.”

In this background, the Court took note that in the present case no statutory grounds to justify denial of bail were established by the prosecution.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail.

Title: Us@us v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

Click Here To Read/Download Order