Juvenile Bail: Justice by Rule or by Chance?

Ten Years of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Rethinking Bail for Children in Conflict with Law

Juvenile is an any individual below the age of 18. According to the indian laws, any child below the age of 7 years cann’t convicted under any law for any crime (Section 20 of BNS). Moreover, every child has the natural ability to develop and make a positive impact on society, but various circumstances and influences often dictate their journey. Acknowledging this, the Indian Constitution and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, highlight the importance of safeguarding and rehabilitating children. While some children may become "in conflict with the law" due to outside factors, a child-centered approach prioritizes care, support, and reintegration instead of simply administering punishment. 

On July 2, the Supreme Court in ABC v. State of Chhattisgarh granted bail to a child who had spent 16 months in custody. In his plea, the boy claimed that he was accused of tampering with evidence. This case raises questions about the effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which completes 10 years in 2025. 

“Child in Conflict with Law” refers to a minor (under 18 years of age) who is alleged or found to have committed an certain offense. It is cover under Section 2(13) of the Act. 

Balancing justice and rehabilitation: Juvenile Bail under India’s Juvenile Justice Act.

Legislative Background: From 2000 to 2015 and Beyond

In 2015, Parliament replaced the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 in response to a growing number of crimes committed by children between the ages of 16–18, particularly in cases involving heinous offences. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2015 Act, as well as its 2021 amendment, emphasised Parliament’s resolve to place the welfare of India’s children at the heart of the justice system. Yet, a decade later, the implementation of the Act calls for closer examination, as several challenges continue to restrict the fulfilment of its intended objectives. 

This article turns its focus to Section 12 of the Act, which lays down the conditions under which bail may be refused to a child in conflict with the law (CCL), and explores how courts have interpreted and applied this provision over the years.

Porsche Incident in Pune (Case Example):

In 2024, a 17-year-old from Pune faced accusations of killing two people while operating his Porsche while intoxicated. What started as an accusation of reckless and negligent driving subject to a maximum of 10 years in prison was subsequently upgraded to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which has a possible penalty of life in prison.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) swiftly approved his bail shortly after his arrest, setting notably relaxed conditions. Nevertheless, after significant public backlash, the Board quickly annulled its previous decision. The bail was later reinstated by the Bombay High Court, escalating the discussions surrounding the case. Accusations quickly emerged that the powerful family of the defendant had meddled in the proceedings, igniting worries about evidence manipulation and bias. The trial is still ongoing.

Section 12 of the JJA, which allows for bail to be granted to the accused regardless of whether the alleged crime is bailable or non-bailable. The release can  be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe. 

Exceptions Under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act: 

1. Association with known criminals

2. Moral, physical, or psychological danger

3. Defeating the ends of justice

Way forward:

The Patna High Court’s ruling in Rakesh Rai v. State of Bihar (2025) reminds us of an essential truth that children in conflict with the law are still children first. Section 12 of the JJ Act makes bail the norm, not the exception, because keeping a child with their family is often the best way to ensure care, stability, and a chance at reform.

As the Act itself makes clear, the focus should be on guidance, protection, and rehabilitation rather than punishment. Courts, therefore, need to view bail decisions not from a lens of fear or retribution, but with the understanding that reintegration and support are what truly serve justice. Moving forward, a consistent child-centered approach will help ensure that the JJ Act fulfils its purpose giving children the opportunity to correct their course and grow into responsible citizens.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now