Juvenile cannot be denied bail solely due to seriousness of allegations: Madhya Pradesh high court

NEW DELHI: The Madhya Pradesh high court has held that the seriousness of an offence alone cannot be a reason to deny bail to a juvenile, and granted bail to a child in conflict with law whose bail pleas had earlier been rejected by both the Juvenile Justice Board and the sessions court.Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat of the Gwalior bench passed the order on 25 May 2026, setting aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, District Guna, and the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, which had denied bail to the juvenile who had been in custody since 1 April 2026.What was the disputeThe juvenile was facing charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 103(1), 109(1), 191(2), 190, 296(B), 115(2) and 118(1). The juvenile had filed a bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the Juvenile Justice Board, District Guna.The board rejected the bail plea on 2 April 2026. Later, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge also upheld the rejection on 9 April 2026, mainly citing the seriousness of the alleged offence.Before the high court, the juvenile's lawyer argued that both courts had rejected the bail plea mainly because of the seriousness of the allegations without showing any specific material to prove that releasing the juvenile would bring the juvenile into contact with known criminals, expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.It was argued that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act requires that a juvenile should be released on bail unless the case falls under the specific exceptions mentioned in the law. In the absence of any such material, the continued detention of the juvenile was not justified.The state opposed the plea and argued that considering the seriousness of the offence and the manner in which the incident took place, the lower courts had rightly rejected the bail application.What the court ruledThe high court agreed with the arguments made by the juvenile's counsel. Referring to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which says that a child accused of any offence should be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into contact with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice, the court observed that except for the seriousness of the allegations, there was no specific material on record to show that releasing the juvenile would attract any of these exceptions.The court also noted that the Probation Officer's report stated that the possibility of improvement in the conduct of the child in conflict with law under proper care and family supervision cannot be ruled out.Accordingly, the high court set aside both lower court orders and directed that the juvenile be released into the custody of the father after the father furnishes a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with one surety.The court also directed the juvenile to report to the Probation Officer on the last date of every calendar month, cooperate in the investigation and trial, and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The juvenile's father was made responsible for the juvenile's maintenance, well-being and overall activities during the bail period.