The Juvenile Justice Board in Panchkula has granted bail to the eight-year-old boy accused of assaulting a kindergarten girl at a school, while directing authorities to remove videos, photographs and other material related to the incident from social media within 15 days, according to a report by Times of India – Chandigarh.
The boy, a Class III student, was represented before the board by his father. The bail application said the child had cooperated with the police, had no previous criminal record and had been falsely implicated in the case. It also argued that continued custody could harm his education, academic progress and overall development.
The child’s parents gave an undertaking to take responsibility for his care and supervision. They assured the board that he would receive counselling, behavioural guidance, rehabilitation measures, education and a supportive family environment. They also agreed to ensure his appearance whenever required and to comply with the conditions imposed by the board.
The report quoted defence advocate Manbir Singh Rathi as saying that the child had regularly played a violent video game on his parents’ phone and that the game may have influenced his behaviour. The advocate said the child had wanted a tattoo inspired by a video game character and described the incident as a warning for parents to monitor what children access on mobile devices. These claims were attributed to the lawyer and were not presented in the report as an independent finding by the board.
A district child welfare development department official who visited the child’s home and met his parents told the newspaper that the boy spent time with older children and had watched them play games on their phones. The official said the child had high energy levels and that his behaviour needed to be addressed through appropriate guidance. The report did not establish that the video game alone caused the alleged assault.
The video-removal direction followed a separate application filed by the child’s father under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The application argued that circulation of videos, photographs and other material could reveal the child’s identity and expose him to humiliation, discrimination and bullying. It sought directions to the investigating officer and school authorities to prevent further sharing of the material.
The case places two child-protection duties alongside each other: ensuring accountability and support within the juvenile justice process, while protecting the identity and dignity of children involved in proceedings. The board’s order also addresses the practical difficulty of controlling the circulation of school-incident footage once it reaches social-media platforms and public forums.
The parents have undertaken to prevent the child from accessing a mobile phone and to arrange counselling, behavioural guidance and necessary treatment. The board has directed authorities to remove the assault video within 15 days. The supplied report does not state whether all platforms had complied with the direction or whether any further action had been ordered against those who circulated the material.
