Bail for juveniles under the JJ Act is the norm, with denial being an exception, requiring the prosecution to prove reasonable grounds for such denial.

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

These two bail applications are filed by children in conflict with law having been arrayed in Crime No.182 of 2025 of Thamarassery Police Station. They seek their release on bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the JJ Act').

2. A brawl between a few students in the evening of 27.02.2025, turned out to be fatal to a young boy of fifteen years. Petitioners along with others allegedly assaulted a minor with a ‘nunchaku’ ( a weapon consisting of two sticks connected with a short chord), inflicting grievous injuries on his head, and later, the injured succumbed to his injuries. A crime was initially registered for the offences under sections 126(2), 189(2), 191(2), 109 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS ’), and after the death of the minor boy, the offence under section 103 of the BNS was also incorporated.

3. Petitioners were apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (for short the ‘JJB’) on 01.03.2025, which rejected their bail applications, and sent them to the Observation Home, Kozhikode. Petitioners thereafter approached the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, but without any success, as their applications were dismissed. Afterwards, they approached this Court through separate bail applications, which were also dismissed by a common order dated 25.04.2025. Soon thereafter, petitioners filed these bail applications pointing out change in circumstances and seeking their release on bail.

4. Sri. K.M. Firoz, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the children in conflict with law have been in custody from 01.03.2025 and some of them, from 04.03.2025 onwards. According to the learned counsel, almost 90 days are over and petitioners continue to remain in the Observation Home, which is contrary to the scheme of the statute. The learned counsel asserted that the scope of section 12 of the JJ Act have not been properly comprehended by the courts since denial of bail to a juvenile must be an exception. The learned counsel referred to various decisions in support of his contentions. It was also submitted that considering the scheme of the JJ Act, petitioners ought to be released on bail.

5. Sri. C.K Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the children in conflict with law (for short ‘CCL’) had committed a brutal and pre- planned murder of another young student and hence releasing them on bail would send a wrong message to the society. It was also submitted that granting them bail may even result in harm to the CCL themselves, as the public are agitated by the crime and their release will expose them to psychological, moral and physical danger and also defeat the ends of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the materials collected during investigation has even revealed the support given by one of the parents of a CCL in criminal activities and therefore the parents are not fit persons to place the petitioners in custody and that even the petitioners will become associated with other criminals in the society and hence they ought not to be released on bail.

6. Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant in his impressive arguments submitted that keeping the CCL in an Observation Home itself is a measure of reformative action and therefore bail ought not to be granted. It was also submitted that the findings in the order of this Court on 25.04.2024, while dismissing their earlier bail applications, restricts the consideration of another application soon thereafter. It was submitted, by referring to the provisions of section 12 of the JJ Act, that the power under the said provision has to be exercised by the JJB in exercise of its original jurisdiction and not by this Court, since petitioners’ applications before the Sessions Court and this Court have already been dismissed once. It was further pointed out that section 12 read with th