Supreme Court flags major lapse by Chhattisgarh High Court: Why a minor just got bail in narcotics case
The Supreme Court found that the petitioner was the son of a domestic worker employed in the house of one of the accused in the case.
The Supreme Court took note of the petitioner’s background while arriving at its conclusion that a case for bail had been made out. (AI-generated image) Supreme Court news: The Supreme Court has granted bail to a minor accused in a narcotics case, holding that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Chhattisgarh High Court had failed to undertake the objective assessment required under the Juvenile Justice Act before denying him relief.
A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a special leave petition challenging the March 12, 2026, order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had upheld the denial of bail to the juvenile.
“We are not satisfied with the reasons adduced for denial of bail,” the Supreme Court bench said on May 21, adding that “there is no objective assessment of the parameters required under the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.”
Justices K V Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter on May 21.
Court examines JJ Act safeguards
- The Supreme Court said that the petitioner was admittedly a “juvenile in conflict with law” and the son of a domestic worker employed in the house of one of the accused persons in the case. The bench noted that he was presently confined in an observation home.
- After examining the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Supreme Court found that the statutory requirements under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been properly addressed.
- The provision lays down the circumstances in which bail may be denied to a child in conflict with the law, including where release may expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
- The Supreme Court said neither the board nor the high court had undertaken an objective analysis of these parameters before refusing bail to the child.
NDPS bail test
- The Supreme Court also considered the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which imposes stricter conditions for the grant of bail in narcotics offences.
- Even applying the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, “we are satisfied that a prima facie case exists for grant of bail,” the court said.
- The Supreme Court took note of the petitioner’s background and his mother’s employment in the house of one of the co-accused while arriving at its conclusion that a case for bail had been made out.
‘No criminal antecedents’
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vikalp Sharma argued that the minor had been denied bail without the mandatory objective assessment contemplated under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
He submitted that the petitioner was merely the son of a domestic worker employed in the house of one of the accused persons and had no independent criminal antecedents.
Court grants plea
Allowing the plea, the Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board.
The special leave petition and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Share
