MP High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile, Says Gravity Of Offence Alone Cannot Justify Continued Detention

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a child in conflict with law cannot be denied bail merely because the allegations against them are serious, unless the statutory exceptions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are clearly attracted.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat passed the order while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by a juvenile through her father, challenging the rejection of her bail application by the Juvenile Justice Board, Guna, and the appellate court.

The case arose from Crime No. 181/2026 registered at Cantt Police Station, Guna, for offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The juvenile had been in custody since April 1, 2026. Her application for bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on April 2, 2026. The order was subsequently affirmed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, on April 9, 2026.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Alok Kumar Sharma argued that the juvenile had been falsely implicated and that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court had rejected bail solely on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations. He contended that neither court had recorded any material indicating that the juvenile's release would bring her into contact with known criminals, expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice, which are the specific grounds under Section 12 for denying bail to a child.

The State opposed the revision through Public Prosecutor Dilip Awasthi. It was argued that considering the gravity of the offences and the manner in which the incident allegedly occurred, the courts below had rightly refused bail. The State further submitted that the juvenile's release could defeat the ends of justice.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the High Court referred to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates that a child alleged to have committed either a bailable or non-bailable offence shall ordinarily be released on bail. The provision creates only limited exceptions where there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would associate the child with known criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court also took note of the report submitted by the Probation Officer. According to the report, the possibility of improvement in the conduct of the child under proper care and family supervision could not be ruled out.

Relying on the statutory framework and the material on record, the Court found that apart from the gravity of the alleged offences, there was no specific material demonstrating that the juvenile's release would attract any of the exceptions under Section 12.

The Court observed, "Except the gravity of the alleged offence, there is no specific material available on record to demonstrate that the release of the juvenile would bring her into association with known criminals or expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that her release would defeat the ends of justice."

Justice Bahrawat further held that the Court did not find any exceptional circumstance warranting denial of bail to the juvenile.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court and directed that the juvenile be released into the custody of her father upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 along with one solvent surety.

The Court imposed several safeguards, including that the juvenile must cooperate with the proceedings, avoid influencing witnesses, refrain from committing similar offences and remain under the supervision and control of her father. The father was also directed to ensure that the juvenile does not come into contact with known criminals and appears before the Juvenile Justice Board on all dates fixed in the matter.

The Court additionally directed the juvenile to report to the Probation Officer on the last date of every calendar month, while requiring the officer to maintain strict vigilance and periodically submit social investigation reports to the Juvenile Justice Board.

Case Title: Child in Conflict with Law V Through his Guardian Father R v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: May 25, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat