Claim of Juvenility Cannot Guarantee Bail: Meghalaya High Court Denies Release to Convict in POCSO Case Pending Age Inquiry

“Bail Under Section 12 JJ Act Not Absolute—Release Would Defeat the Ends of Justice in Light of Grave Allegations and Prior Conduct”, In a significant judgment reiterating that bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is not an unfettered right, the Meghalaya High Court on 9 February 2026 rejected the bail application of a convict serving a 25-year sentence under the POCSO Act, despite his claim of juvenility being under inquiry.

Justice W. Diengdoh observed that “the conduct of the convict while on previous bail, even if not yet proved, is prima facie sufficient to decline bail at this stage”, and held that his release “would defeat the ends of justice”—the exception clause expressly carved out under Section 12 of the JJ Act.

“Reformative Approach Must Yield to Judicial Caution Where Risk of Reoffending Exists”: Court Cites Prior Sexual Assault by Convict on Same Survivor

The convict, Lovely Chyrmang, son of the applicant Smti. Dis Chyrmang, had been convicted for aggravated sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in Special (POCSO) Case No. 34 of 2020, and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. His appeal against conviction (Crl. A. No. 55 of 2024) is pending before the High Court.

In the course of appeal, the convict raised a claim of juvenility, contending that he was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. The High Court had, on 2 April 2025, referred the matter to the Trial Court for age determination, where the inquiry is still pending.

Relying on Section 12 of the JJ Act, the applicant sought bail for the convict during the pendency of the inquiry, asserting that bail is the statutory norm for a child in conflict with law, and must be granted unless the case falls within the narrow exceptions defined in the proviso.

However, the Court noted that while “juvenility may be claimed at any stage”—as affirmed in Hari Ram, Abuzar Hossain, and Rishipal Singh Solanki—such a claim does not translate into automatic entitlement to bail.

“Ends of Justice Must Prevail Over Procedural Presumptions in Heinous Cases”: Bail Refused Despite Pending Juvenility Inquiry

The prosecution, while not disputing the legal position that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, opposed the bail plea on the ground that the convict had previously misused his liberty while on bail. It was submitted that the convict had allegedly sexually assaulted the same minor survivor a second time, leading to the registration of Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2018, which remains pending.

The State contended that “the applicant cannot be prematurely treated as a juvenile” pending final determination of age, and emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the risk of recurrence.

The Court agreed with this contention and held that “bail could equally be refused on the ground that releasing a juvenile would defeat the ends of justice.”

Quoting the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Raju @ Ashish v. State of U.P., the High Court noted:

“The words ‘defeat the ends of justice’... postulate as one of the relevant considerations, the nature and gravity of the offence... Other factors such as the specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child would also be relevant.” [Para 19]

The Court further observed:

“If the convict is released on bail at this stage, it would justify the term ‘defeat the ends of justice’.” [Para 21]

“Presumption of Innocence Does Not Preclude Judicial Caution”: Allegations of Repeat Offence Sufficient to Reject Bail

The applicant’s counsel had urged that the second allegation of sexual assault was yet unproven, and hence, could not form the basis for denial of bail. The Court, however, took a different view:

“Even if not yet proved, the conduct of the convict while on previous bail is prima facie evident... This act would not inspire confidence for his release at this point of time.” [Para 20]

Rejecting the plea that presumption of innocence mandates bail, the Court clarified that Section 12's exception clause applies independently, and judicial assessment of risk, gravity, and potential harm is not prohibited.

“Child-Centric Approach Not Ignored, But Must Not Override Statutory Caution in POCSO Offences”: No Violation of Juvenility Jurisprudence Found

While acknowledging the child-centric and reformative objective of the Juvenile Justice framework, the Court clarified that the ongoing age inquiry had been duly directed by the Court, and that no prejudice had been caused to the convict.

“There is no violation of this principle... The proceedings before this Court or even before the Trial Court have honoured the right of the convict to have his age determined.” [Para 15]

Thus, the Court held that while the determination of age may ultimately result in a finding of juvenility, it cannot mechanically trigger release on bail when the facts of the case and prior conduct suggest otherwise.

No Bail Pending Age Inquiry—High Court Declines to Apply Section 12 JJ Act as Blanket Mandate

Dismissing the application, the Meghalaya High Court concluded:

“On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made in this application. The same is hereby rejected.” [Para 21]

This decision draws a clear judicial boundary between procedural safeguards for juveniles and the substantive caution required in cases involving heinous sexual offences, particularly where the accused’s conduct shows risk of reoffending. The judgment reinforces that “juvenility” cannot operate as an automatic ground for bail, especially in cases where release may compromise the safety of the survivor and the justice process itself.

Date of Decision: 09 February 2026