The Supreme Court has ruled that for juveniles, the period of detention can be considered a fresh ground for filing a second bail application under the JJ Act. Denial of bail is unjustified once the investigation is complete and the co-accused are granted bail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reinforcing the rights of juveniles under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Supreme Court of India has held that the period of detention can constitute a fresh ground for filing a second bail application. The Court further observed that once the investigation is complete and a similarly placed co-accused juvenile is granted bail, denial of bail becomes unjustified.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, setting aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court which had dismissed a juvenile’s revision petition as not maintainable.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether a second bail application filed by a juvenile could be rejected solely on the ground that it amounted to a second revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act.
The Supreme Court categorically rejected this reasoning and held that:
“There is no embargo on filing a second bail application. A second bail prayer may have to be considered on new grounds, and the period of detention may, in circumstances, constitute a fresh ground—more so in the case of a juvenile where bail is the rule and denial is the exception.”
Background of the Case
The Appellant-Accused, who was a juvenile, had initially filed a bail application, which was rejected on the ground that his release could expose him to bad company. Aggrieved by this decision, he preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
Thereafter, a revision petition was filed under Section 102 of the JJ Act before the Rajasthan High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable, treating it as a second revision filed without any new grounds. During this period, the investigation in the case was completed, and a co-accused, who was also a juvenile, was granted bail.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court found multiple errors in the High Court’s approach and made the following crucial observations:
1. Second Bail Application Was Maintainable
The Court clarified that the second bail application did not arise from the same cause of action as the first one:
- The first bail plea was rejected during the pendency of the investigation
- The second bail plea was filed after the completion of the investigation, constituting a fresh circumstance
2. Bail is the Norm for Juveniles
Reiterating the mandate of Section 12 of the JJ Act, the Court emphasized that:
- Bail is the rule for juveniles
- Denial of bail is an exception and must be supported by strong reasons
3. Social Investigation Report Favoured Bail
The Court examined the Social Investigation Report and noted:
- No criminal antecedents in the juvenile’s family
- No material suggesting the juvenile would fall into bad company upon release
- Rehabilitation within the family was considered appropriate
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held:
“The bail prayer of the appellant ought to have been considered on merit and should not have been rejected on the ground of maintainability.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order rejecting the bail application, directed that the juvenile be released on bail, and disposed of the matter in favour of the Appellant-Accused.
Appearances:
Appellant-Accused: AoR Ayush Anand, Advocates Ashima Gupta, Pankaj Singhal, Chandan Kashyap, Harshita Raj and Monu Kumar
Respondent-State: AAG Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G., AoR Nidhi Jaswal, Advocates Shagufa Khan, Aman Prasad
Case Title:
Juvenile In Conflict With Law AA v. State of Rajasthan
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18636/2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports On Juvenile
