Between Custody and Care: A Deep Dive into Juvenile Bail Jurisprudence

Introduction

Today our country is witnessing a growing trend of juvenile crimes, with many recent examples drawing significant public attention. Therefore, it becomes important to understand and acknowledge the concept of bail as provided by law for juveniles. This article delves into juvenile bail jurisprudence in India and examines the statutory scheme governing the grant of bail to children in conflict with law.

Legal Regime Relating to Bail for Juveniles in Conflict with Law

The legal framework governing bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is encapsulated in Section 12, which embodies a statutory presumption in favour of granting bail to a child in conflict with law, irrespective of whether the alleged offence is bailable or non-bailable in nature. However, bail may be denied if the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has reasonable grounds to believe that such release is likely to bring the child into association with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or otherwise defeat the ends of justice.

In every instance where bail is refused, the Board is required to record specific reasons for such denial in writing. Furthermore, in cases where bail is not granted, the child must be placed in an observation home or a place of safety, and under no circumstances can a child be confined in a jail or police lock-up. Before delving into the concept of bail, it is essential to first examine the wording of the relevant statutory provision and the applicable Model Rules.

Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act-

Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. –

(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.

Rule 8 (3) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016

Rule 8 – Pre-Production action of Police and other Agencies.-

 (3) (i) The police officer apprehending a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall: not send the child to a police lock-up and not delay the child being transferred to the Child Welfare Police Officer from the nearest police station. The police officer may under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act send the person apprehended to an observation home only for such period till he is produced before the Board i.e. within twenty-four hours of his being apprehended and appropriate orders are obtained as per rule 9 of these rules;

(ii) not handcuff, chain or otherwise fetter a child and shall not use any coercion or force on the child;

(iii) inform the child promptly and directly of the charges levelled against him through his parent or guardian and if a First Information Report is registered, copy of the same shall be made available to the child or copy of the police report shall be given to the parent or guardian;

(iv) provide appropriate medical assistance, assistance of interpreter or a special educator, or any other assistance which the child may require, as the case may be;

(v) not compel the child to confess his guilt and he shall be interviewed only at the Special Juvenile Police Unit or at a child-friendly premises or at a child friendly corner in the police station, which does not give the feel of a police station or of being under custodial interrogation. The parent or guardian, may be present during the interview of the child by the police;

(vi) not ask the child to sign any statement; and

(vii) inform the District Legal Services Authority for providing free legal aid to the child.

Analysis

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down the procedure and conditions for granting bail to a child alleged to be in conflict with law. It provides that such a child, whether accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, shall ordinarily be released on bail with or without surety, or may be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or a fit person.

However, bail may be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would likely bring the child into association with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. In such cases, the Juvenile Justice Board must record the reasons and circumstances leading to the denial of bail.

If the child is not released on bail by the police, the child must be kept only in an observation home until produced before the Board. Similarly, if the Board denies bail, it shall send the child to an observation home or a place of safety for the duration of the inquiry. Furthermore, if the child is unable to meet the bail conditions within seven days, the Board is required to review and may modify those conditions.

Rule 8(3) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 outlines the duties and conduct expected of the police when apprehending a child alleged to be in conflict with law. It mandates that the child shall not be placed in a police lock-up, nor should there be any delay in transferring the child to the Child Welfare Police Officer. In accordance with Section 12(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the child may be sent to an observation home only for the limited period necessary until he or she is produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, which must be done within twenty-four hours of apprehension for appropriate bail or other orders.

The Rule further prohibits the use of handcuffs, coercion, or force; requires prompt information to the child and parents about the charges; ensures access to medical and legal aid; and directs that any interaction with the child must take place in a child-friendly environment, not resembling custodial interrogation.

This legal framework signifies that the law indeed adopts a reformative and rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive one, recognising that children have a greater capacity for change and reintegration into society. Section 12 creates a presumption in favour of bail, reflecting the belief that detention should be the last resort. Bail can only be denied when release would expose the child to criminal influence, moral or physical danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

Additionally, the accompanying Model Rules reinforce this child-centric approach by ensuring that no child is placed in a police lock-up or subjected to coercive methods. The framework collectively emphasises care, protection, and restoration, ensuring that children in conflict with law are treated with dignity and provided opportunities for correction rather than punishment. Thus, the bail provisions under the Act and Rules uphold the core philosophy of the juvenile justice system  that every child deserves a chance to reform and rebuild their life in a safe and supportive environment.

Landmark Judgements

Juvenile In Conflict with Law vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2024)

Facts:

In this case, a juvenile was apprehended on 15 August 2023 for offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC (now section 74 and 351 of BNS respectively) and Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act. His bail applications under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were repeatedly rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, and later by the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, the juvenile remained in custody for over a year. A psychological assessment report on record indicated that he did not pose any behavioural or social risk. Aggrieved, his guardian approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.

Judgment and Observations:

The Supreme Court, per Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, held that Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act establishes a mandatory presumption in favour of bail for a child in conflict with law, regardless of the nature of the offence. Bail can be denied only if the conditions in the proviso—such as risk of association with criminals, exposure to danger, or defeating the ends of justice—are specifically found to exist. The Court noted that none of the lower courts had recorded any such findings, making the denial of bail unjustified.

Significance:

The Court strongly criticised the lower courts for mechanically rejecting bail and reiterated that detention of a juvenile is an exception, not the rule. It reaffirmed the child-centric, reformative intent of the Juvenile Justice framework and emphasised that the authorities must apply Section 12(1) with sensitivity and adherence to its proviso.

 Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551

Facts:

In this case, the appellant, accused of serious offences including murder, claimed juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Act, which raised the age of juvenility to 18 years, applied retrospectively to offences committed before its commencement.

Judgment:

The Court held that the date of the offence is the determining factor for deciding juvenility, and the 2000 Act applies prospectively only to offences committed after 1 April 2001. However, pending cases could benefit if the accused was below 18 years on the date of the offence.

Significance:

The judgment clarified the applicability and scope of the Juvenile Justice Act and reaffirmed that its primary objective is reformative, not retributive. It underscored the need to treat juveniles with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment.

Juvenile X v. State of U.P. & An. (Allahabad HC, 28 Feb 2023)

Facts:

A juvenile aged about 15 years was denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, leading to a revision before the High Court.

Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court held that bail is the rule and detention the exception for juveniles. It observed that the gravity of the offence alone is not a valid reason to deny bail. Under Section 12(1), refusal is justified only if release may associate the child with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice—none of which were established here. The Court, therefore, granted bail.

Significance:

The decision reaffirms the child-centric and reformative approach of the JJ Act, stressing that denial of bail must be supported by clear, concrete reasons under the proviso to Section 12(1).

Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 (Supreme Court of India).

Facts:

The case arose from a murder charge where the Juvenile Justice Board initially rejected the respondent’s claim of juvenility. On appeal, the Sessions Court accepted his school certificate as proof of age and declared him a juvenile, later granting him bail. The High Court upheld both orders.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court affirmed that once valid documentary evidence such as a school certificate proves a person was under 18 on the date of offence, the Board must accept it under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It further held that the Board has no power to review its own order. On bail, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision, observing that none of the exceptions under the proviso to Section 12(1) (risk of association with criminals, moral/physical/psychological danger, or defeat of justice) were established.

Significance:

The judgment reiterates the reformative spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act and strengthens the statutory presumption in favour of granting bail to juveniles unless clear, recorded reasons justify refusal.

 Conclusion

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, represents a progressive and compassionate legal framework that recognises the unique position of children in conflict with law. The bail provisions enshrined under Section 12 of the Act and Rule 8(3) of the Model Rules, 2016, reinforce the principle that a child’s liberty must not be curtailed unless absolutely necessary. As the study concludes, it is essential to remember that “no child is born delinquent; circumstances make them so.” The true measure of a just society lies in its ability to transform these circumstances with empathy, care, and opportunity. Strengthening the bail process under the juvenile system is not merely a procedural reform, but a reaffirmation of faith in every child’s capacity for change. Thus, the Juvenile Justice Act stands as a living testament to the idea that justice for children must always begin with understanding and end with hope.