Section 12 JJ Act 2015 | Mandatory Statutory Protection For Juveniles Applies Even When Tried As An Adult: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"This Court does not find any of the three conditions laid down in Section 12 of the 2015 Act to be applicable, which may have led this Court to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the statutory mandate for the release of a juvenile in conflict with the law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, remains applicable even when the juvenile is being tried as an adult.

A bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal underscored that the gravity of the offense, such as a charge under Section 302 IPC, cannot supersede the protective mandate of the 2015 Act unless specific statutory exceptions are met.

The petitioner, a juvenile in conflict with the law, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC in connection with the death of one Satish, who was found dead at his factory. Following his apprehension on February 15, 2024, the juvenile remained in custody for over two and a half years while the trial proceeded slowly, with only three out of 28 witnesses examined. The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), emphasizing his status as a juvenile and the parity of his case with a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The primary question before the court was whether a juvenile in conflict with the law, who is being tried as an adult for a heinous offense, can be denied the benefit of bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act. The court was further tasked with evaluating whether the prosecution had established any of the three specific conditions under the Act that justify the denial of bail to a juvenile.

Applicability of Section 12 of JJ Act

The court clarified that the protective shield afforded to juveniles under the 2015 Act is not extinguished simply by the nature of the trial process. Even when a juvenile is being tried as an adult, the court is obligated to assess the bail application through the lens of Section 12, which mandates release unless there exists a high probability that the juvenile will come into association with known criminals, or that their release would expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that it would defeat the ends of justice.

No Grounds for Denial of Bail

The bench noted that the petitioner had already endured over two and a half years of custody. With the investigation complete and the trial likely to span a significant period due to the remaining number of witnesses, the court found no compelling reason to continue the incarceration of the juvenile. The court observed that the state’s opposition based on the severity of the crime did not satisfy the threshold required to override the legislative mandate of the 2015 Act.

Court Assesses Risk Factors

The court meticulously examined the record and determined that none of the three exceptions stipulated under Section 12 were triggered in the present case. By prioritizing the rehabilitative intent of the juvenile justice system over the punitive nature of the IPC/BNS charges, the court reaffirmed that the statute’s intent is to protect the juvenile’s welfare rather than facilitate prolonged detention.

Finding merit in the petition, the court ordered the release of the juvenile on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment serves as a precedent ensuring that even in cases of heinous crimes where transfer to adult courts occurs, the core bail protections for children in conflict with the law remain robust and enforceable.

Date of Decision: 11 September 2026