Is bail for ‘children in conflict with law’ a matter of chance?

On 2 July, the Supreme Court in ABC v State of Chhattisgarh granted bail to a child who was in custody for 16 months. In his appeal, the child claimed that he was accused of destroying evidence. The case raises questions about the effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), which completes 10 years this year. 

Parliament in 2015 felt the need to replace the law of 2000 as there were increasing cases of crimes committed by children in the age group of 16-18 years, especially in certain categories of heinous offences. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the JJ Act and its amendment in 2021 declared that Parliament was committed to prioritising India’s children above all issues. 

The Act’s implementation in the last 10 years, however, merits an in-depth scrutiny to address issues that limit the realisation of its objectives. The present article focuses on how courts have dealt with Section 12 of the Act, which specifies when courts can deny bail to a child in conflict with the law (CCL). 

The Pune Porsche incident

Last year, a 17-year-old in Pune allegedly caused the death of two people while driving his Porsche under the influence of alcohol. This came to be known as the Pune Porsche case. The initial allegation of rash and negligent driving was later amended to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The punishment for the former is 10 years of imprisonment, while for the latter it is life imprisonment. 

In this case, the Juvenile Justice Board initially granted bail within a few hours of arrest with lenient bail conditions. However, the Board quickly cancelled the bail after taking note of the public backlash over its decision. The Bombay High Court later restored the bail. The case led to allegations of preferential treatment towards the accused and manipulation of the evidence by the family of the accused’s influential family. The trial in the case is still pending.

Bail under Section 12

In the present case, the CCL submitted that the case against him was based only on circumstantial evidence and hinged primarily on the alleged Disclosure Statement of the co-accused (his juvenile brother). The Chhattisgarh High Court, however, denied him bail on 31 January 2025. It noted that the accused had admitted to having killed his step-brother in a domestic dispute at the behest of his mother and burnt the dead body in a forest. 

What is common to both cases is Section 12 of the JJA, which provides for the grant of bail to the accused irrespective of whether the crime alleged is bailable or non-bailable. There are only three exceptions to the grant of bail: 

1. If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the accused into association with any known criminal; 
2. If it exposes them to moral, physical or psychological danger; or 
3. If the release defeats the ends of justice. The Board is required to record reasons for denying the bail and the circumstances that led to such a decision. 

The key feature of Section 12 is that the CCL is entitled to bail by default. As the Delhi High Court held in a recent case, mere gravity of the offence is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to refuse bail. It must also be demonstrated that detention is necessary for the child’s rehabilitation, protection, or to prevent interference with the judicial process. The Delhi High Court also noted that the JJ Act creates a specific framework for bail that departs from general criminal law principles under the CrPC. The statutory presumption in favour of bail can only be rebutted if compelling reasons exist, the High Court had held. 

In the ABC case, however, the Chhattisgarh High Court order, while denying bail, referred to the gravity of the offence of murder. It held that there would be a miscarriage of justice and a “danger to the society” if the applicant is released on bail The High Court and the two Courts below (Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur) did not explain how any of the three exceptions under Section 12 were met, to deny bail to the accused. 

The CCL told the Supreme Court that the Social Investigation Report, prepared by the Legal cum Probation Officer, had recommended the grant of bail. It was also submitted to the High Court. However, the High Court didn’t refer to this recommendation. 

A comparison of the Pune Porsche case and the ABC case indicates an in-built bias of the lower courts in the treatment of bail pleas under Section 12 of the JJA against CCLs with a particular class background. The safeguards laid down in the JJ Act to ensure the timely grant of bail to CCL were apparently not followed in letter and spirit in the Bilaspur case, leading to an avoidable delay of 16 months in granting bail by the top court. Such a comparison is only for illustration, as the bias is noticeable among many cases reported across the country. 

The Patna High Court, in Rakesh Rai v State of Bihar (2025) reaffirmed the mandatory nature of bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, holding that it applies to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature. The High Court had held that the family is considered the best and most desirable institution for ensuring the welfare and rehabilitation of the child. In such a situation, the High Court reasoned, the release of the CCL on bail would serve and promote the ends of justice better than detaining the appellant in the observation home. 

The JJ Act prioritises the welfare and rehabilitation of the child over retributive concerns. The Act emphasises that bail decisions for a CCL must be assessed within the protective and reformative objectives, rather than through an adversarial lens. 

Recent Supreme Court cases

On 23 June, the Partial Court Days Bench (PCDB) of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K.V.Chandran granted anticipatory bail to a CCL in UP. The Allahabad High Court had first granted the CCL anticipatory bail, but later cancelled it. The reason for denial: failure to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50000 with two sureties. In such circumstances, Section 12(4) of the Act provides for modification of the bail conditions, in case the CCL is unable to fulfil them. 

On 9 May, a Bench comprising Justices A.S.Oka and Bhuyan had granted bail to a CCL who was earlier denied it by the Rajasthan High Court. Later that same month, on 23 May, the Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K.V.Chandran granted interim bail to a CCL who was denied relief by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. On 29 May, a Bench of Justices B.V.Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma found that the Chhattisgarh High Court had wrongfully denied bail to a CCL, as he had been in jail for nine months, and allowed his criminal appeal. On 14 May, a Bench of Justices M.M.Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal refused to interfere in a case in which the High Court had allowed criminal revision after a reasoned order. 

However, there were instances of denial of bail by the Supreme Court. On 22 May, a Bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R.Mahadevan denied bail to a CCL despite having spent 15 months in custody. The Supreme Court’s order noted that the trial was in progress and the victim had yet to be examined. But it didn’t explain how the exceptions under Section 12 were attracted in this case. 

On 8 May, a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta denied relief to a CCL, though he was in custody for three and a half years. The Allahabad High Court had earlier denied bail in this case without specifying how the exceptions laid down in Section 12 of the Act were attracted. 

These inconsistencies prompt us to suggest that the grant of bail to a CCL under Section 12 of the Act may well be a matter of chance.