Patna High Court
XXXversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The court held that the conditions for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act are not met and the appellants are entitled to bail.
Summary
The appellants, a 16‑year‑11‑month‑old minor and his brother, were denied bail by the Additional District & Session Judge in a case involving offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act. They appealed, arguing that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 bail is the rule for children in conflict with law unless specific exceptions apply. The High Court examined the statutory provisions and found no material to justify denial of bail, noting the absence of any allegation against the second appellant and the mother’s willingness to stand surety. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail to both appellants with conditions. The decision underscores that bail for juveniles should be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe release would expose them to criminal influence or defeat the ends of justice.
Issues considered
- Whether bail must be granted to a child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether the exceptions to bail under Section 12 are attracted in the present facts.
- Whether continued detention of a person not named in the FIR is justified.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 109, 3(5), 351, 352
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 3(i), 3(iv), 3(v), 3(xiv)
Subjects
- bail
- juvenile justice
- child in conflict with law
- Section 12
- exception to bail
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1396 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2024 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria
======================================================
XXX S/o Arjun Yadav R/o village - Rajajan, P.S.- Mansi, District - Khagaria,
through mother, natural guardian, Vibha Devi, aged about 39 Years, W/o
Arjun Yadav, R/o Village - Rajajan, P.S - Mansi, District - Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Ashok Poddar @ Ashok Kumar S/o Late Jagdish Poddar R/o - Dheramchak,
Ward No. 7, P.S - Mansi, District - Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 832 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2024 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rocky Kumar S/o- Arjun Yadav R/o- Rajajan, P.S.- Mansi, Distt.- Khagaria,
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. Ashok Poddar S/o Late Jagdish Poddar R/o Dharamchak, ward no. 7, P.S.-
Mansi, Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1396 of 2026)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abha Singh
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 832 of 2026)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abha Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
3 26-05-2026 Both these appeals were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. Both these present applications have been filed
against the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned court
of Additional District & Session Judge, 1st Khagaria in
connection with Criminal Bail Application No. 43/2026, Spl.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1396 of 2026(3) dt.26-05-2026
2/5
Child Case No. 08/2025, arising out of Mansi P.S. Case No.
275/2024, registered under Sections 109, 103(1), 352, 351 and
3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, by which the
prayer for bail of the appellants has been rejected.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
appellant no. 1 is that he, on the direction of his father, namely,
Arjun Yadav, gave the pistol to the latter who shot the
informant-cum-deceased. The appellant no. 1 was declared a
child in conflict with law as he was aged about 16 years 11
months at the time of the occurrence. The second son, namely,
Rocky Kumar (appellant no. 2) is not named in the FIR and
there is no specific allegation against him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that both the appellants have been held to be juvenile and on the
date of occurrence they were assessed to be less than eighteen
years of age.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants further relies
upon the provisions of Section 3(i), (iv), (v) and (xiv) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He
also relies upon Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and has submitted that bail is
a rule and denial of bail to a juvenile is an exception.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1396 of 2026(3) dt.26-05-2026
3/5
6. He further submits that though the appellants are
children in conflict with law, they have remained in jail since
07.08.2025 having a clean antecedent, and that the Court below
has not properly considered the law with regard to the release of
a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits
that the family members of the appellants, including the mother,
will take care of them so that they may not indulge in any
further crime and may not remain in the company of criminals.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced, the
statutory provisions relied upon, and the material on record, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants
interference for the following reasons.
9. First, Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates that a child in
conflict with law shall be released on bail with or without surety
as a rule, and bail may be denied only where there exist
reasonable grounds to believe that such release is likely to bring
the child into association with known criminals, or to expose the
child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that such
release would defeat the ends of justice. No such finding was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1396 of 2026(3) dt.26-05-2026
4/5
recorded by the learned court below, nor do the facts before this
Court disclose any material warranting application of that
exception.
10. Second, so far as appellant no. 2, namely Rocky
Kumar, is concerned, his position is materially distinct from that
of appellant no. 1. He is not named in the FIR, and no specific
role or allegation has been attributed to him either in the first
information or in the prosecution case as placed before this
Court. His continued detention in these circumstances is
difficult to sustain.
11. Third, both the appellants have been in custody
since 07.08.2025, are of a young age, and have no prior criminal
antecedent. Their mother is willing to stand surety and has
offered an undertaking to take their care and supervision, which
provides an adequate safeguard against the concern of the child
being exposed to criminal influence.
12. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the
conditions for invoking the exception under Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
have not been made out, and the appellants are entitled to bail.
The impugned order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned
court of Additional District & Session Judge, 1st Khagaria in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1396 of 2026(3) dt.26-05-2026
5/5
connection with Criminal Bail Application No. 43/2026, Spl.
Child Case No. 08/2025, arising out of Mansi P.S. Case No.
275/2024, is hereby set aside.
13. Let the appellants, above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned court of Additional District & Session
Judge, 1st Khagaria, concerned Court below, in connection with
Criminal Bail Application No. 43/2026, Spl. Child Case No.
08/2025, arising out of Mansi P.S. Case No. 275/2024, subject
to the following conditions:
(i) that one of the bailors shall be the mother of the
appellants;
(ii) that the mother of the appellants shall file an affidavit
before the concerned Court below, giving a specific
undertaking that after the release of the appellants on bail,
she will take proper care of the appellants and will not
allow them to fall into bad company;
(iii) The appellants will co-operate in the trial in the
Children Court. They will appear personally or through
their lawyer. Any default in the same will result in the
cancellation of the bail bonds of the appellants.
(Ansul, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.