Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted to Juvenile Accused in Murder Case; Holds Failure to Assess Exposure to Criminality and Risk to Child’s Welfare
Case Name: Sandeep Singh alias Seepa v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 13 January 2026
Citation: CRR-2259-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that while bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the same must be denied where there exist reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The Court held that failure of the Juvenile Justice Board to independently assess these statutory conditions vitiates the order granting bail.
Summary: The criminal revision petition was filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa, whereby respondent No.2, Harjinder Singh @ Gullu (juvenile), was granted regular bail in FIR No.178 dated 10.06.2024 registered under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 120-B and 216 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, relating to the murder of Devender Singh @ Gaggu.
The FIR was lodged on the statement of the petitioner, who was an eye-witness to the incident. It was alleged that the deceased was first hit by a speeding car and thereafter attacked by a group of armed assailants, including the juvenile respondent, with pistols and swords, leading to his death. The motive alleged was that the deceased was a witness in a criminal case against a co-accused.
The petitioner assailed the bail order on the ground that the juvenile respondent belonged to a family with deep criminal antecedents, that his father was involved in multiple serious criminal cases and was lodged in Tihar Jail, and that his mother and brother were also accused and absconding. It was contended that the juvenile himself was involved in several criminal cases and that after being granted bail, he absconded and got involved in additional serious offences, thereby clearly satisfying the statutory exceptions under Section 12 of the Act.
The State supported the petitioner and placed on record details of multiple FIRs registered against the juvenile respondent, including offences under the IPC, Arms Act and NDPS Act, some of which were registered after the grant of bail.
The High Court examined the scheme of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and reiterated that although bail is the norm, the proviso mandates denial where release would expose the child to criminal association or danger or defeat the ends of justice. The Court found that the Juvenile Justice Board had mechanically granted bail solely on the basis that the prosecution had not specifically pleaded the statutory exceptions, without undertaking an independent evaluation of the material on record.
The Court noted that within a short period after grant of bail, the juvenile respondent was involved in multiple serious offences and had absconded from proceedings, requiring substantial efforts to secure his production. The Court held that these subsequent events clearly demonstrated exposure to criminality, absence of effective familial supervision, and a real flight risk, all of which were contrary to the best interests of the child.
Rejecting the objection regarding maintainability, the Court held that the existence of an appellate remedy under Section 101 of the Act does not bar the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 in appropriate cases.
Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa granting bail to the juvenile respondent was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, keeping in view the parameters under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.