The teen, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged earlier this month with one count of engaging in an act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act.

Police have alleged he engaged in that "planning act" on May 8. He is also charged with one count of possessing things connected to a terrorist act.

A Children's Court in Melbourne heard on Tuesday that the youth was also charged on May 21 with failing to comply with an order he supply the password for a piece of equipment while in custody.

The development came when the prosecution applied to have the charges against the accused uplifted to the Supreme Court.

Media reporting on cases before a children's court are prohibited from naming defendants, lawyers and presiding court officials. The exact location of any hearing also cannot be revealed.

The boy was arrested at his home during a raid on the property by Victorian and Australian Federal Police.

Three improvised explosive devices were allegedly found at the property, which were later destroyed through controlled detonations by the police bomb squad.

The prosecutor on Tuesday also applied for forensic samples - a saliva swab and fingerprints - from the accused, which he did not oppose, while his lawyer announced he would seek to adjourn a bail application that was listed before the court.

The lawyer told the court the defence intended to deal with the application to uplift at the bail hearing, which was later adjourned until June 1, and that his client had no prior criminal history.

He argued the application to uplift was premature and that ultimately the sole defining issue will be the question of sentencing.

In ordering the accused to undergo the forensic testing, which confirmed an earlier interim order by a magistrate, the judge said he was satisfied on the basis of an affidavit by a police officer that the youth was a suspect.

He was also satisfied that there were reasonable grounds that the accused had committed the offences, that the forensic procedure was justified and that it would tend to confirm or disprove he committed the offences.

The judge said also he was obliged to advise the accused that reasonable force may be used to ensure he complied with the order.

Any accused dealt with in a children's court would face a lesser sentence than if the charge or charges were determined in a higher court on indictment.

The prosecutor told the presiding judge that the application to uplift was "not an opportunity to engage in the strength or weakness of the case" but was rather related to the nature of the allegations and the nature of the evidence at a summary hearing or a committal hearing.

He agreed with the judge that the gravity of the charges alone was not sufficient to justify excluding the jurisdiction of a children's court.

The defence lawyer also told the court that a formal complaint had been made to the Office of Public Prosecutions about an earlier front page article in an unnamed newspaper that allegedly identified his client and residential address.

The judge reminded the media of their legal obligations in reporting such cases.

A worker with youth justice will assess the youth - who appeared via video link - before his application for bail.