Recently, the Supreme Court has expounded that the bail cannot be denied to a juvenile in a criminal case unless the court records that the minor is likely to be associated with a known criminal, be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger, or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih sets aside the orders of the Rajasthan High Court and Juvenile Justice Board denying bail to a juvenile, who was booked for sexually assaulting a minor.

Referring to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), SC Bench stated that from the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be "necessarily released on bail", with or without surety, or placed under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person unless proviso is applicable.

The bench referred to the proviso to sub-section 1 of section 12 which said, "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".

SC Bench while taking into consideration the orders passed by the JJB and HC stated that, "There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to a juvenile in conflict with law".

Apex Court pointed out that the boy was taken into custody on August 15, 2023 and sent to a juvenile care home. The charge sheet was filed in the case on August 25, 2023.

The bench observed that since being taken into custody, he twice filed bail pleas under section 12(1) of the JJ Act, but his prayers were rejected, and even the High Court had dismissed his appeal against the denial of bail.

SC concluded by stating that, "....the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed".

Read Order @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :