Patna High Court

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of specific evidence that the juvenile's release would expose him to criminal influence or endanger his well‑being, bail must be granted under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Summary

The petitioner, a 17-year-old juvenile named Vinay Kumar, was arrested in connection with the murder of a complainant's son based solely on a co-accused's confessional statement. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge denied his bail, citing potential danger to his moral, physical and psychological well‑being and the risk of associating with known criminals. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the statutory grounds for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 were not satisfied and that his continued detention violated the presumption of innocence and best‑interest principles. The High Court examined the provisions of the JJ Act, noting that bail can be denied only if specific risks are demonstrated, which were absent in the record. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the lower courts' orders, and directed that the juvenile be released on bail with conditions.

Issues considered

What are the statutory grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for denying bail to a child in conflict with law?
Did the lower courts correctly apply these grounds in denying bail to the juvenile petitioner?
Whether the identity disclosure in the cause title violated Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 111, 137(2), 3(5), 61(2)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 3, 74

Subjects

bail
child in conflict with law
Juvenile Justice Act
presumption of innocence
best interest of child
revision petition
name correction
identity disclosure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.693 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-804 Year-2024 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
XXXX

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Rai S/O Late Bahawan Rai R/o Vill-Sabalpur,Hasti Tola, P.S.- Sonpur,
Distt- Saran at Chapra

... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the O.P.-State : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhashkar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER

3 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,

submits that the name of the petitioner is Vinay Kumar but

while entering the cause title, mistake was made by the office

and the office wrongly entered the name of the petitioner as

‘Vijay Kumar’ and is still continuing the mistake and showing

the name as ‘Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar’. Learned counsel

further submits that as objection has been raised by the office,

the name Vijay Kumar was also added showing alias name as

Vinay Kumar.

3. Office is directed to correct the name in cause title,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
2/13

as I find from the petition that the petitioner has rightly

mentioned the name of the petitioner as ‘Vinay Kumar’ and it

was the fault of the office that name of petitioner as Vijay

Kumar came to be inserted in the cause title.

4. Though, from perusal of record, it transpires that in

the revision petition, the identity details of the Juvenile is being

disclosed, which is against the statutory provisions prescribed

under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 which mandates protection of disclosure of

identity of the juvenile in conflict with law. Therefore, the

identity of the petitioner is being referred to in the cause title as

XXXX.

5. Registry while uploading the order on the website

shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar

manner.

6. The instant revision petition has been filed for

setting aside the Judgment/Order dated 10.06.2025 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge

(Children Court), Saran at Chapra in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of

2025 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge

(Children Court) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner affirming

the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
3/13

Justice, Board, Saran at Chapra and also to set aside the order

dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at

Chapra rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in

connection with J.J.B. Case No. 1067 of 2024 arising out of

Sonpur PS Case No. 804 of 2024 for the offences under Section

137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and, later on, added

Sections 103(1), 61(2), 111, 3(5) of BNS.

7. Briefly stated, facts of the case leading to the

institution of the present petition are that the opposite party no.

2 lodged a case vide Sonpur P.S. Case No. 804 of 2024 under

Section 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging there

in that on 25.09.2024 at about 02:00 PM, the informant's son,

Suraj Kumar, left his home after receiving a phone call, but he

did not return. Later, at 9:00 PM, the complainant called him

and talked to him, after which his mobile phone was switched

off. During the call, the informant’s son told him that he was

near Mohammadpur and would return in an hour, but he did not

come back. After searching, the informant found no information

about his son's whereabouts. During investigation, the dead

body of son of the informant was found near Mahi river. The

name of the petitioner transpired during investigation in the

confessional statement of co-accused Raja Kumar for being
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
4/13

involved in the murder of son of the informant along with other

co-accused persons. Later on, vide order dated 30.09.2024,

Sections 103(1), 61(2), 111, 3(5) of BNS were added. The

petitioner was declared juvenile by the learned J.J. Board, Saran

at Chapra vide order dated 29.01.2025 as his age was 17 years,

8 months and 26 days at the time of alleged occurrence. The

petitioner/child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’) was taken

in custody on 29.09.2024. The CICL moved before the learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chpara for grant of bail but his

prayer was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025. The CICL

preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide order

dated 10.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I-cum Special Judge (Children’s Court), Saran at Chapra.

The CICL approached this Court against the aforesaid two

judgments/orders.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this

case. Learned counsel further submits that while passing the

orders, both the learned courts below acted in mechanical

manner and have not taken into consideration the mandate of

law. The name of the petitioner came in the confessional

statement of the co-accused but no specific role has been
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
5/13

attributed to him. Learned counsel further submits that the

petitioner is a student and works part time as tutor for his

expenditure, as such, there is no reasonable ground for believing

that his release is likely to bring him under the influence of any

criminal or expose him to moral danger at his village. Both the

learned courts below ought to have considered the facts that the

petitioner was not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating

has been recovered from his possession, so his freedom would

not defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel further submits

that the parents of the petitioner undertakes to take proper care

of the petitioner after release on bail and would not allow him to

fall into bad company and would try to bring change in his

behaviour, if required. Learned counsel further submits that both

the courts below passed the orders without recording any reason

that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into

association with known criminals or expose him to any moral,

physical or psychological danger. For his proper physical and

mental development, he needs to be enlarged on bail as his

continuous custody would be detrimental to his mental and

physical well being. There is no chance of CICL falling in bad

company and he is the first offender and is not having any

criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
6/13

29.09.2024. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been

released on bail after setting aside the impugned orders as both

the Courts below passed erroneous orders.

9. Learned APP for the State as well as learned

counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2 opposes the

submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel

for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the name of the

petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-

accused, Raja Kumar, who admitted that he along with

petitioner and other co-accused persons committed murder of

the son of the informant. Learned counsel further submits that

social investigation report/social background report of the

petitioner does not permit him to be enlarged on bail and grant

of bail to the petitioner would be against the interest of the

CICL.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties.

11. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:-

“Section 12 Bail to a person who is
apparently 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
7/13

abailable or non-bailable offence, is
apprehended or detained by the police or
appears or brought before a Board, such person
shall, 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 care 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 persons 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 cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home1[or a place of
safety, as the case may be] 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 a 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
8/13

order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is
unable to fulfil 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.”

12. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that a CICL

could be denied bail only on the ground that on release, the said

child would come in contact with criminal elements and there

was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being

of the CICL or would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds

are not present, the bail could not be denied to a CICL.

13. Now, at the same time, relevant portion of Section

3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015, inter alia, provides for the general principles of care and

protection of children and are extracted herein below:-

“The Central Government, the State
Governments, [the Board, the Committee, or]
other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be
guided by the following fundamental principles,
namely:---
(i)Principle of presumption of innocence:
Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of
any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of
eighteen years.
(ii)Principle of dignity and worth: All
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
9/13

human beings shall be treated with equal dignity
and rights.
(iii)Principle of participation: Every child
shall have a right to be heard and to participate
in all processes and decisions affecting his
interest and the childs views shall be taken into
consideration with due regard to the age and
maturity of the child.
(iv)Principle of best interest: 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.
(v)Principle of family responsibility: 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.
(vi)Principle of safety: All measures shall
be taken to ensure that the child is safe and is
not subjected to any harm, abuse or
maltreatment while in contact with the care and
protection system, and thereafter
(vi)…
(vii)…
(viii)Principle of non-stigmatising
semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are
not to be used in the processes pertaining to a
child.
(ix)…
(x)…
(xi)...
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
10/13

(xii)Principle of institutionalisation as a
measure of last resort: A child shall be placed in
institutional care as a step of last resort after
making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii)Principle of repatriation and
restoration: Every child in the juvenile justice
system shall have the right to be re-united with
his family at the earliest and to be restored to the
same socio-economic and cultural status that he
was in, before coming under the purview of this
Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is
not in his best interest.
(xiv)...
(xv)…
(xvi)...”
14. Cumulative reading of these two provisions show

the CICL shall be released on bail unless the fact comes on

record that there was chance of such child coming in contact

with a known criminal or enlarging such child on bail might

endanger his moral, physical or psychological well being.

Further the courts being parens patriae are supposed to look into

for protection of best interest of the child. All such steps are to

be taken by the Courts for reformation and rehabilitation of a

child in conflict with law.

15. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that

the alleged offence is serious but the bail to a child in conflict

with law could be denied only under specific circumstances as
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
11/13

mentioned hereinbefore. Otherwise the bail is a rule and jail is

an exception in case of CICL as well. The CICL has remained in

custody since 29.09.2024 and perusal of the impugned orders

show the bail was denied on the ground that release of the child

in conflict with law would be against the best interest of the

child and there is apprehension that release of CICL is likely to

bring him into association of any known or unknown criminals

or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and

his release would defeat the ends of justice. However, from the

record as well as social investigation report/social background

report of the CICL, I do not find any material to infer that the

child would come in contact with some known criminal or if

released, he will suffer mental, physical or psychological harm.

For reformatory measures and rehabilitation and to protect the

best interest of the child, the best place could be the house of the

child. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra as well as learned 1st

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children Court,

Saran at Chapra are not sustainable in the given facts and

circumstances of the case.

16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of

the considered opinion that the child in conflict with law could
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
12/13

be released on bail. Let the petitioner, a child in conflict with

law, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of

the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Saran at Chapra/concerned court in connection

with J.J.B. Case No. 1067 of 2024 arising out of Sonpur PS

Case No. 804 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be the
parents of the petitioner and other bailor
will also be relative of the petitioner having
no criminal antecedent and shall give
undertaking that he/she shall keep proper
care and upkeep of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present
before the Board on each and every date of
trial of the case fixed by the Board.

17. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and

the judgment/order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Children Court),

Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 20 of 2025,

as well as order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in J.J.B. Case No. 1067 of 2024

arising out of Sonpur PS Case No. 804 of 2024, are hereby set

aside.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.693 of 2025(3) dt.29-01-2026
13/13

18. Office is directed to return the lower court record

forthwith.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…