Meghalaya HC Refuses Bail to Convict Claiming Juvenility in POCSO Case

The Meghalaya High Court has refused to grant bail to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, who has raised a claim of juvenility pending age determination, holding that release at this stage would defeat the “ends of justice” within the meaning of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The Court clarified that while bail is ordinarily the rule for a child in conflict with law, the statutory exception permitting denial of bail applies where the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances indicate a serious risk to justice, even while an inquiry into age is pending.

A single judge Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed a bail application filed on behalf of the convict who is undergoing a sentence of 25 years imprisonment imposed by a Special POCSO Court.

The Court upheld an earlier order of the Trial Court rejecting bail and directing that the convict be lodged in a Place of Safety during the pendency of age determination proceedings, declining to interfere with that decision.

The case arose from Special (POCSO) Case No. 34 of 2020, in which the applicant’s son was convicted by a Special POCSO Judge by judgment dated 20.09.2024, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years along with fine.

Aggrieved by the conviction, the convict had preferred a criminal appeal before the Meghalaya High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, he raised a plea of juvenility, contending that he was a minor at the time of commission of the offence and seeking determination of age in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

By an order dated 02.04.2025, the High Court had directed the Trial Court to conduct an inquiry into the age of the convict at the relevant point in time. While the age determination proceedings were ongoing and had reached the stage of recording of evidence, the applicant approached the Trial Court seeking bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Trial Court, however, rejected the application on 01.12.2025, holding that the case fell within the exception carved out under Section 12, as release of the convict would defeat the ends of justice. It further directed that the convict be kept in a Place of Safety instead of regular jail custody.

Before the High Court, counsel for the applicant argued that once a claim of juvenility is raised, the approach of the Court must remain child-centric and reform-oriented.

It was contended that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates grant of bail to a child in conflict with law irrespective of the nature of the offence, unless specific statutory grounds for denial are made out.

Relying on decisions of the Top Court including Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal, it was submitted that a person claiming juvenility should not be subjected to ordinary incarceration pending inquiry and ought to be released on bail with appropriate conditions.

The State opposed the plea, while conceding that bail is ordinarily the norm under Section 12.

The counsel, however, contended that the present case squarely attracted the exception permitting denial of bail on the ground that release would defeat the ends of justice. It was pointed out that the convict had earlier been released on bail and had allegedly misused that liberty by committing sexual assault on the same survivor for a second time, resulting in registration of a separate POCSO case which was still pending adjudication.

It was argued that such conduct demonstrated a continuing criminal proclivity and posed a grave risk to the survivor and the administration of justice.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the settled position of law that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage and that courts are bound to consider such plea.

The Court also acknowledged the reformative and child-centric philosophy underlying the Juvenile Justice Act. However, it emphasised that Section 12 itself incorporates an exception where bail may be denied if release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.

Relying on judicial precedents interpreting this exception, including decisions recognising that the nature and gravity of the offence, past conduct, and likelihood of reoffending are relevant considerations, the Court held that the facts of the present case did not inspire confidence for release on bail. The Court observed that even though the allegation of repeat offence was yet to be finally adjudicated, the material on record prima facie indicated misuse of liberty when bail was previously granted.

The Court concluded that releasing the convict at this stage, when age determination proceedings were still pending, would undermine the ends of justice.

Case Title: Smti. Dis Chyrmang v. State of Meghalaya

Bench: Justice W. Diengdoh

Date of Decision: 09.02.2026