15.09.2026 A.Bhar SL. No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) CRM 12 OF 2026 In re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. CCL. -Versus- The State. Ms. Shipra Mandal, …for the Petitioner. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, ….for the State. This is an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Naya Suraksha Sanhita 2023 filed by a CCL who was arrested in Diglipur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026 dated 04.03.2026 under Section 3/4/5(1)/5(m)/6/11(iv)/12 of POCSO Act 2012 read withSection64(1)/64(2)m/65(2)/126(2)/127(2)/351(3) of BNS 2023, and is in custody for six months facing trial in Special POCSO Case No. 08 of 2026. ST No. 21 of 2026 before Learned Special Judge (POCSO) at Mayabunder Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner and Learned Advocate for the opposite party state. Perused the charge sheet and other materials on record. 2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the instant case is instituted after a period of one and half years which creates doubt about the case of the prosecution. Learned Advocate further submits that the Learned Trial Court without recording reasons under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 rejected the prayer for bail. Learned Advocate also submits that pursuant to being implicated in this case the education of the CCL is being hampered, as he could not attend any class and has to sit for class XII examination in the year 2027. It is further submitted that the victim girl and the main witnesses are already examined and grant of to bail CCL will not result in tampering of evidence. Learned Advocate for the opposite party state submits that there are sufficient materials against the CCL. Learned Advocate further submits that statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborates the case of the prosecution. Learned Advocate also submits that as trial has commenced CCL may not be granted bail. In the instant case although FIR is lodged after one and half year but as the trial has commenced it would not be proper to make observation with regard to the merits of the case. However it is necessary to decide as to whether CCL should be enlarged on bail. Thus provision contained in Section 12 of the 3 Juvenile Justice (care and protection of Children) Act 2015 is to be considered. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act 2015 provides as follows:- 12. Bail to a person who is apparemetly a child alleged to be in conflict with law. 1) When any person who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person should notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the case of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. 2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station such officer shall 4 cause the person to be kept only in an observation home, in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. 3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or place of safety as the case may be for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person as may be specified in the order. 4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. Thus from plain reading of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 it will appear that bail is the rule with regard to a CCL and Jail is the exception. In the instant case from the nature of allegation and materials on record it does not appear that the release of CCL will bring him in association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral physical or psychological danger. Further the Counselor posted at the observation home where CCL is kept has submitted that the conduct of the CCL is good. Now with regard to the submission made by Learned Advocate for the petitioner that the education of CCL is hampered as the said CCL could not attend 5 any class in standard XII learned Advocate for the petitioner draws attention to the provision contained in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act 2015 and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of us@usub VS State of Rajasthan petition No. 1503/2024. In the said case the Hon’ble Court while considering the provision of Section 12 of the Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Rakesh Rai VS State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC Online Pat 374 was pleased to observe as follows:- ‘34. The abovementioned precedent reinforces the principle that bail for a juvenile is the norm, with its denial being an exception, permissible only when the statutory conditions under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 are met. The mere gravity of the offense is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for refusal, unless it is demonstrated that detention is necessary for the child‟s rehabilitation, protection, or to prevent interference with the judicial process. In the present case, the learned ASJ‟s reasoning aligns with this settled legal position, as the prosecution failed to establish any statutory ground justifying the denial of bail to the CICL. 35. This Court notes that the Act of 2015 creates a specific framework for bail that departs from the 6 general criminal law principles under the CrPC. The statutory presumption in favor of the bail can only be rebutted if compelling reasons exist. 36. Even if a Child In Conflict With Law is transferred for trial as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015, his bail application shall be entertained under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. This view has been consistently discussed and followed in umpteen judgments of various High Courts. In the case of CCLA VS. State Nct of Delhi reported in (2020) 10 DEL CK 0155, the Delhi High Court has categorically held that, “even when a child is sent-up for trial as an adult before a Children‟s Court, the child does not become an adult or „major‟, but is only to be treated differently considering the heinous nature of the offence alleged and consequent need for a stricter treatment of the offender, though still as a juvenile in conflict with law.” The Delhi High Court further observed that, “even though a child may be sent-up for trial before the Children‟s Court as an adult, there is no provision in the JJ Act that requires any departure from considering the matter of release of such child on bail under section 12.” Similar views have been expressed in the cases of Siddalinga SN Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 1541, and Shubham Alias Bablu Milind Vs. State of 7 Maharashtra, decided by Bombay High Court while deciding Bail Application No. 2282 of 2021. 37. The bail to a CICL may be denied if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger, or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 38. The governing principle of the Act of 2015 is given under Section 3 of the Act, that principle of best interest which is one of the principles, which provides that all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. In fact, as per principle (V), the primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be.‟ In the case of Rakesh Rai VS State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC Online Pat 374 the Hon’ble Court observed as follows:- ‘11. Use of the expression- "such person shall be released on bail" in Section 12(1) of the Act also shows that grant of bail to a juvenile is mandatory unless grounds for denial are present. 8 12. It also emerges that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. Even a child who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification whatsoever provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section 12 is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature. 16. As such, if keeping of the child in custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice. (Also refer to Abhishek Vs. State, 205 CriLJ (NOC) 115 (Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, 2006 CriLJ 4759). Moreover, the family is considered as the best and most desirable institution for ensuring welfare and rehabilitation of the child, if the family environment is conducive for the development of the child. In such situation, the release of the appellant on bail would serve and promote the ends of justice better than detaining the appellant in the observation home.‟ Apart from considering the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection) of 9 children Act 2015 it is to be kept in mind that the law is framed to fulfill the duties as enshrined under clause (3) of article 15 clauses (3) and (f) of article 39, article 45 and article 47 of the Constitution to ensure that all needs of children are met and their basic human rights are fully protected. The Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act 2015 is to consolidate and amend the law relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care protection, development treatment social re-integration by adapting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposed of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes provided and institutions and bodies established hereunder and for matters connected and incidental thereto. Thus considering the object of the Statute and Section 12 and that family is normally considered as the best and most desirable institution for ensuring welfare and rehabilitation of the child and school education being necessary for a child who is a school student and is required to sit for class XII, or class X examination reasonable opportunity should be given to the child to attend school and be with the family. Moreover one CCL of this case is already on bail. 10 Thus in the interest of justice the petitioner CCL should be released on bail. Hence the petitioner/CCL be released on executing bond by his Guardian, with 2 sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each subject to satisfaction of Learned Trial Court. The petitioner/CCL upon being released on bail, shall not meet with the victim girl and witnesses of the case. He shall be produced by his Guardian in Court on all dates fixed. Apart from going to school, coaching class or to doctor in case of necessity the CCL, will not go to any other place without leave of the trial Court. All parties to act on server copy of the order. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)