ORDER

This criminal revision u/S 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity "JJ Act") has been preferred by the Child in Conflict with Law through his natural guardian/father against the against the order th dated 20.08.2026 passed by the 5 Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (POCSO Act), Indore in Criminal Appeal No.322/2026, whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the order dated 06.08.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Indore in Crime No.386/2026 registered at Police Station Heeranagar, District Indore for commission of offence u/S 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 296-B, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. By the said order, the Principal Magistrate had rejected the application filed u/S 12 of the JJ Act seeking release of the child on bail/supurdagi.

Facts giving rise to the instant revision are that the child in conflict with law was taken into custody in connection with the aforesaid crime and has been lodged in the Observation Home, Indore since 01.05.2026. An application under Section 12 of the JJ Act was filed on his behalf which came to be rejected by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Indore on 06.08.2026 primarily on the basis of the Social Investigation Report. The appeal preferred under Section 101 of the JJ Act was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20.08.2026.

Hence the present revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Courts below have rejected the application without properly applying the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act. There is no material on record to show that the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The child has no previous criminal antecedents. He is a student of Class 12 and has been in the Observation Home continuously since 01.05.2026. The father is engaged in dairy business and is ready and willing to take the child under his care and supervision and to ensure his presence before the Board. The continued detention of the child for more than three months is contrary to the rehabilitative object of the JJ Act. It was therefore prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the child be released on bail/supurdagi in the custody of his father.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the non-applicant/State opposed the revision and supported the orders of the Courts below. It was submitted that the Social Investigation Report indicates that the neighbourhood is predominantly of less-educated labour class and that releasing the child at this stage may expose him to undesirable company and other risks. The offences are serious in nature and he has criminal antecedents. Hence the revision deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the case diary, the Social Investigation Report, the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 06.08.2026 and the appellate order dated 20.08.2026.

It is not in dispute that the child was below 18 years of age (approximately 17 years) on the date of the alleged incident. Section 12 of the JJ Act mandates that a person who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The proviso to Section 12(1) carves out only three limited exceptions:-

(i) if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the child into association with any known criminal; or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Bail is the