The High Court has reiterated that distinction between bailable or non-bailable offense gets done away with in respect of a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The single-judge bench noted that any person, who is apparently a child, shall be entitled to be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.

In the present criminal revision petition, judgements of Juvenile Justice Board and Addl. Sessions Judge have been assailed via which the petitioner was denied bail.

It was an admitted position that the petitioner was a juvenile and was charged with offences under Sections 304, 338, 107, 201 IPC.

The Court at the outset noted that from a perusal of the order passed by the Board, it appears that the sole ground, on which the bail was rejected, is that the revisionist may again commit an offence.

In the present case, the bail has been dismissed considering the gravity of offences alleged to have been committed by the revisionist, it opined.

The Court mentioned that every juvenile under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been is entitled to be released on bail except in circumstances where his/her release will bring him/her into association with any known criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

"A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act reveals that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be entitled to be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The distinction between bailable or non-bailable offence has been done away with in respect of a juvenile."

‘Child’ means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age, the Court calrified.

In regard to the present case, the Court noted that as per Section 12 of the Act, the bail can be refused if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal.

"The word ‘known’ has not been used by the Parliament without purpose. By use of the word ‘known’, the Parliament requires that the Court must know the full particulars of the criminal with whom the delinquent is likely to come into association. In the case in hand, there is no such evidence on record regarding the same; both the impugned orders are silent about it; the bail of the delinquent was rejected simply on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature while Section 12 of the Act is silent about it."

Allowing the CRP, the Court quashed the impugned orders.