Legal provisions regarding bail of juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.
In Mata Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, the High Court of Rajasthan held that from a perusal of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 [at present Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000], it clearly transpires that a delinquent juvenile (at present the juvenile in conflict with law) ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed unless it is shown that there appears reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him under the influence of any criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
In Mithalal v. State of Rajasthan, a juvenile was charged with offence of murder but his name was not there in the F.I.R. The report of the Probation Officer did not show any adverse criminal antecedents against him. It was held that under these circumstances juvenile has to be released on bail irrespective of the gravity of the offence if there is no possibility that his released would bring him in association with known criminals. In this case juvenile was released on bail with direction that his guardian shall keep proper look after of the delinquent child and keep him away from the company of known crimes.
In Manoj v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), bail was refused to the accused on ground that release of juvenile would defeat the ends of justice as trial of case was yet to commence but factors required as to whether release of juvenile would defeat the ends of justice were not considered.
Nothing else has been pointed out which would indicate the release of petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. It was held that the petitioner be released on bail because granting of bail of juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is mandatory unless and until exceptions carved under Section 12 of the Act are made out.
In Tunni v. State of Bihar, the petitioner was facing rape charges and was languishing in the custody of Remand Home for more than five years. Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the period of detention could not be more than three years. It was held that the petitioner has to be released from the custody of Remand Home forthwith and the bail was granted.