The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the seriousness of an offence cannot be the sole reason to deny bail to a juvenile. The court granted bail to a child in conflict with law whose previous bail applications had been rejected by both the Juvenile Justice Board and the sessions court.
Court Order Details
Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat of the Gwalior bench passed the order on 25 May 2026, setting aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, District Guna, and the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. These lower courts had denied bail to the juvenile, who had been in custody since 1 April 2026.
Background of the Case
The juvenile faced charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 103(1), 109(1), 191(2), 190, 296(B), 115(2), and 118(1). The juvenile had filed a bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the Juvenile Justice Board, District Guna. The board rejected the bail plea on 2 April 2026. Later, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge upheld the rejection on 9 April 2026, primarily citing the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Arguments Before the High Court
Before the high court, the juvenile's lawyer argued that both lower courts had rejected the bail plea mainly due to the seriousness of the allegations, without showing any specific material to prove that releasing the juvenile would bring him into contact with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. It was argued that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act requires that a juvenile should be released on bail unless the case falls under specific exceptions mentioned in the law. In the absence of such material, the continued detention of the juvenile was not justified.
The state opposed the plea, arguing that considering the seriousness of the offence and the manner of the incident, the lower courts had rightly rejected the bail application.
High Court's Ruling
The high court agreed with the juvenile's counsel. Referring to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which states that a child accused of any offence should be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into contact with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice, the court observed that except for the seriousness of the allegations, there was no specific material on record to show that releasing the juvenile would attract any of these exceptions.
The court also noted that the Probation Officer's report stated that the possibility of improvement in the conduct of the child in conflict with law under proper care and family supervision cannot be ruled out.
Accordingly, the high court set aside both lower court orders and directed that the juvenile be released into the custody of his father after the father furnishes a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with one surety.
The court also directed the juvenile to report to the Probation Officer on the last date of every calendar month, cooperate in the investigation and trial, and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The juvenile's father was made responsible for the juvenile's maintenance, well-being, and overall activities during the bail period.
