Back
Bail Cannot Be Denied to Juvenile on of Criminal Association: High Court
Ranchi: The has reaffirmed that for juveniles in conflict with law, setting aside two lower court orders that denied bail to a 17-year-old based on a of criminal association.
The Case of a 17-Year-Old: From Arrest to Bail
The petitioner, a minor aged about 17 years at the time of the alleged incident, was arrested on , in connection with Lohsinghna P.S. Case No.01/2026. He was accused of offences under various provisions of the , including causing death and injuries. His counsel argued that the only allegation against him was breaking the windshield of a Bolero car, and the contained nothing adverse.
The , and later the , rejected his bail pleas. They cited an apprehension that if released, the minor would come into contact with known criminals and be exposed to .
Bail as a Rule, Not an Exception
The High Court examined , which overrides the bail provisions of the and other laws. The Court observed that bail to a juvenile is the rule, and refusal is an exception permitted only on three specific grounds: (i) that release would bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal, (ii) expose the juvenile to , or (iii) .
The Court found that the lower courts had relied on a without any material evidence to support such a conclusion. The did not indicate anything adverse against the petitioner.
Key Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted:
"In the absence of any material or evidence of
, it cannot be said that his release would
and learned courts have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the
."
The Court emphasized that the findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court were not sustainable in law.
Father's Undertaking and the Court's Conditions
The petitioner's father, Vijay Kumar Gupta, expressed willingness to give an undertaking that he would keep the juvenile in good behaviour, prevent him from associating with known criminals, and ensure he does not face any . The Court accepted this and directed the minor's release on bail upon furnishing a by the father with two .
The conditions imposed include reporting to the on the first Monday of every month, strict vigil by the , and ensuring the juvenile pursues his studies and constructive activities.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the protective framework of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, ensuring that juveniles are not detained on speculative grounds. It serves as a reminder to lower courts that bail is the default position for juveniles, and any denial must be backed by concrete material, not mere apprehensions.
