"Not a Habitual Offender": MP High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile, Sets Aside JJB Order
MP High Court grants bail to a juvenile in an arms and BNS murder-related case, ordering his release into his mother's custody after co-accused adults had already secured bail from other courts.
Juvenile Accused in Murder Case Gets Bail, MP High Court Orders Custody to Mother
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has granted bail to a juvenile accused in a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, holding that he could be released and handed over to the custody of his mother.
Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, hearing Criminal Revision No. 3691 of 2026, set aside an order dated 7/8/2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jabalpur, which had rejected the petitioner's bail application in connection with Crime No. 103/2026.
The petitioner, described in the order as a "child in conflict with law," had approached the High Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, after the Juvenile Justice Board turned down his plea for bail on charges under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 302 and 34 of IPC), along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mahesh Acharya argued that the main allegations in the case were directed against the co-accused persons, and that the petitioner had been implicated largely on the strength of a memorandum statement recorded from a co-accused. According to the order, the "only allegation against the petitioner is that despite being a juvenile, he took away the co-accused persons from the place of incident in a motorcycle."
Acharya further pointed out that two of the co-accused, Ritik alias Sumit Choudhary and Sudheer Choudhary, had already been granted regular bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court through an order dated 21/8/2026, passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 33981/2026 and 29480/2026. A third co-accused, Nilesh alias Jai Ben, had also secured regular bail from the Sessions Court on 31/8/2026, in Bail Application No. IA 483/3/2026 (ST No. 309/2026).
It was also submitted that the petitioner had been lodged at a safety centre, an observation home for juveniles, since March 2, 2026, and had no history of prior offences. "He is not a habitual offender," the order recorded, as counsel urged the court to extend the benefit of bail on these grounds.
Government Advocate Samta Jain, appearing for the State, opposed the plea and sought dismissal of the revision, defending the Juvenile Justice Board's earlier refusal to grant bail in the matter.
After hearing both sides and going through the material on record, Justice Bansal held that the petitioner deserved to be released. "Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the documents available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be released on bail and can be handed over to the custody of his mother," the order stated.
The court directed that the petitioner be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court below, to be executed by his mother. It further directed that the mother submit an undertaking assuring that she would produce the petitioner before the court below "on each and every date so fixed by it."
With these directions, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the Juvenile Justice Board and allowed the revision. "Accordingly, the criminal revision succeeds and is hereby allowed," the order concluded, disposing of any pending applications in the matter.
Case Title: Sushma Ben v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order: September 7, 2026
Bench: Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal