Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The High Court held that bail must be granted to the CICL as the lower courts failed to satisfy the statutory grounds for denial under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Summary

The petitioner, a child in conflict with law (CICL) aged 15, was accused of the double murder of an informant's wife and daughter. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) denied his bail application, and the appellate court upheld that denial, prompting a revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner argued that the lower courts denied bail without any material showing the statutory grounds under Section 12, such as risk of contact with criminal elements or danger to his well‑being. The High Court examined the child‑friendly provisions of the Act, emphasizing the principle of the child's best interest and the requirement that bail can be refused only on the specific grounds listed in the statute. Finding no evidence to satisfy those grounds and noting procedural lapses, the Court set aside both the JJB and appellate orders and directed the release of the petitioner on bail with conditions. The revision petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of bail to a CICL was justified under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Whether the lower courts erred in applying the statutory criteria for bail denial without substantive material.
Whether the principle of best interest of the child mandates granting bail in the absence of statutory grounds.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 102, 12, 74

Subjects

bail
juvenile justice
child in conflict with law
best interest of child
Section 12
revision petition
double murder

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.869 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-848 Year-2024 Thana- SAHARSA SADAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
X1
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vikash Kumar Paudar, S/o Chhotelal Paudar, R/o Nariyar Ram Janki
Chowk, Ward No. 8/12, Police Station Saharsa, District-Saharsa.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Dinesh Maharaj, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned APP for

the State.

2. From perusal of record, it transpires that in the

revision petition, the identity details of the petitioner/child in

conflict with law (for brevity “CICL”) is being disclosed, which

is against the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

(for short ‘the Act of 2015’), which mandates protection of

disclosure of identity of the CICL. Therefore, the identity of the

CICL is being referred to in the cause title as X1.

3. Registry while uploading the order on the website
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
2/9

shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.

4. The instant criminal revision application has been

preferred by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Act of 2015

challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal

No.05 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-

cum-Children Court, Saharsa whereby the order dated

07.12.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in JJB

Case No.232 of 2024 arising out of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No.

848 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections

103(1) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 has been

affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been

dismissed.

5. As per prosecution case, the wife and the minor

daughter of the informant went outside in early morning to pluck

flowers but they did not return. Subsequently, their dead bodies

was found in a primary school. The name of the petitioner and

co-accused transpired as the persons who committed murder of

the wife and the daughter of the informant.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 18.08.2024. The

petitioner claimed himself to be juvenile on the date of

commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa

declared the petitioner as juvenile and assessed the age of the

petitioner X1 to be 15 years, 04 months and 15 days on the date
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
3/9

of commission of the offence.

7. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the

Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa. The Board rejected his

application for bail vide order dated 07.12.2024.

8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2024

passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa, the petitioner

preferred appeal in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions

Judge-cum-Children Court, Saharsa. The appellate court vide

order dated 25.07.2025 dismissed the appeal and upheld the

order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa.

9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2025

passed by the appellate court, the petitioner has moved the

present revision petition before this Court.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the FIR

and during investigation his name came up for being involved in

the occurrence. The learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the

learned appellate court refused to grant bail to the petitioner

merely on assumption. The learned JJ Board as well as learned

appellate court ignored the fact that there was no substantive

material on record for presuming that the release of the petitioner

may bring him in association with any known criminal or expose

him to any moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
4/9

cousnel further submits that the learned courts below proceeded

in the matter denying bail to the petitioner considering the

heinous nature of offence but the seriousness of offence could

not be relevant for grant of bail to a CICL. Learned counsel

further submits that though the learned JJ Board referred to

Social Investigation Report (hereinafter referred to as “SIR”) of

the CICL for holding that there was lack of parental supervision

over the petitioner but there was no material to arrive at such

observation. Similarly, the learned appellate court held that the

CICL/petitioner would come in contact with his associates which

would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger but

again there was no material for arrive at such conclusion.

Learned counsel referred to the decision of a learned Single

Judge of this Court dated 12.11.2020 passed in Criminal

Revision No. 367 of 2020, wherein in somewhat similar

circumstances, bail was granted to a CICL. Learned counsel

further submits that both the learned courts below have failed to

appreciate the statutory provisions prescribed under the Act of

2015 and the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Lalu

Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2019

(4) PLJR 833. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused

Krishan Kumar @ Krisan Kumar has been granted bail by a

learned Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
5/9

Criminal Misc. No. 44286 of 2025.

11. Learned APP for the State as well as learned

counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 vehemently

contend that there is no infirmity in the orders of the learned

courts below and said orders have been passed after due

consideration of facts and law involved in the case and the appeal

of the petitioner was rejected on completely valid ground.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that

it was a case of double murder and from the confessional

statement of the co-accused, it transpires that it was the petitioner

who was actively involved in the double murder of the wife and

the daughter of the informant. It shows that the release of the

petitioner would bring him into association of known criminals

or he would further commit such type of offence.

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

13. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 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 or there

was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being

of the CICL or the release would defeat the ends of justice. If

these grounds are not present, the bail could not be denied to a

CICL.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
6/9

14. Further, the Act of 2015 is, in fact, child friendly.

The central theme is that the interest of child is supreme. Section

3 of the Act of 2015 incorporates the general principles to be

followed in the administration of the Act. According to which,

“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, Section 3(iv) of

the Act of 2015 provides for the principle of best interest and for

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. Section 3(xii) of the Act

of 2015 makes it abundantly clear that a child shall be placed in

institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable

inquiry. Further, Section 3(xiii) of the Act of 2015 provides for

Principle of repatriation and restoration stating that a CICL shall

have the right to re-unite with his family and be restored to the

social, cultural and the economic background that he came from

unless such restoration and repartition is not in the CICL’s best

interest.

15. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions show

the CICL should 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 expose
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
7/9

him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 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 CICL.

16. From the record, it transpires that the appellate

court and the Juvenile Justice Board did not appreciate Social

Investigation Report submitted by the probation officer properly.

From the order of the learned appellate court, I hardly find any

material to show that there is any basis before the learned

appellate court to arrive at its finding that release of the petitioner

would allow him to come in contact with his previous associates

and his social, physical and psychological well being would

come to any harm and the ends of justice would be defeated.

Moreover, the purpose of the Act of 2015 is the reformation of

the child and the institutionalization of a CICL is a matter of last

resort and could not be resorted to thinking that such custody

would allow to develop the mental and physical well being of the

child and psychologically make him a good citizen. This is

possible only under the guardianship of the parents and other

family members. The nature of offence cannot be made a ground

to refuse bail to a CICL as held in case of Lalu Kumar & Ors.

(Supra). Moreover, the implication of the petitioner is on

suspicion and on the basis of confessional statement of co-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
8/9

accused. Further, the co-accused has been granted bail by a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court.

17. Keeping these facts into mind, the orders impugned

cannot be sustained.

18. Accordingly, the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Children Court, Saharsa is set aside.

Consequently, the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in JJB Case No. 232 of 2024

arsing out of Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 848 of 2024 rejecting

the prayer for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.

19. The petitioner, a CICL, is directed to 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, Saharsa/concerned

court in connection with JJB Case No. 232 of 2024 arising out of

Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 848 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.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.869 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
9/9

(ii) The petitioner shall remain present
before the Board on each and every date of
trial of the case fixed by the Board.

20. The revision petition stands allowed.

21. The office is directed to send back the LCR to the

court concerned forthwith.

22. Since it is a matter of 2024, the learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Saharsa is directed to take up steps for early

conclusion of trial and try to conclude the same at the earliest and

send a report to this Court after conclusion of the trial, preferably

within six months from the date of order.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.06.2024
Transmission Date 24.06.2024

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.