Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Ray @ Vikash SawversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Bail to a juvenile is a rule under Section 12 of the JJ Act and may be denied only on the three grounds in the proviso; in this case, the family circumstances and potential defeat of the ends of justice justified denial, so the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The appeal concerned two juveniles, aged between 16 and 18, charged with murder under Sections 302, 440 and 34 of the IPC. Their regular bail applications were rejected by the Children Court on the ground that the alleged offence was heinous. The Patna High Court examined the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which makes bail a rule and allows denial only on three specific grounds. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail, but the family background of the first appellant (father and cousin also accused) and the lack of a responsible guardian for the second appellant amounted to a risk of defeating the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the denial of bail and directing the lower court to continue the observation‑home custody of the juveniles.
Issues considered
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence can be a ground to deny bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015.
- Whether the family environment and risk of defeat of the ends of justice justify denial of bail to juveniles.
- Whether the Children Court erred in rejecting the bail applications without recording specific grounds under the proviso to Section 12.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 440
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 15(2), 18(3), 3
Subjects
- juvenile justice
- bail
- Section 12
- observation home
- murder
- heinous offence
- ends of justice
- Children Court
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1451 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2024 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
1. XXX (Real name withheld)
2. YYY (Real name withheld)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate.
Mr. Gautam, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04.05.2026
The present Appeal has been preferred by the
Appellants vide impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by
learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nawada, in
Special Case (Child Act) No. 01 of 2025 arising out of
Kauwakol P.S. Case No. 156 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 440 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, whereby the regular bail petition of the
Appellants has been rejected by learned Children Court holding
that the Appellants have been alleged to have committed
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 440 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is heinous in nature
touching the conscience of the general public.
2. As per the prosecution case, the victim was beaten
and set on fire by the appellants and the co-accused which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
2/24
resulted into death of the victim.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against three persons including both the appellants. By the
order dated 29.07.2024 the case of the appellant No.2 was sent
to Juvenile Justice Board whereas the case of appellant No.1
was sent to Juvenile Justice Board by the order dated
27.08.2024. The case of both the appellants were amalgamated
by the order dated 21.10.2024. Vide order dated 06.01.2025,
preliminary assessment of both the appellants was conducted by
learned Juvenile Justice Board and they were found to be
physically and mentally mature. Hence, their case was sent to
Children Court for their trial as adults.
4. By the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, the
regular bail petitions of the appellants were rejected by learned
Children Court. Hence, the Appellants are before this Court.
5. Trial of the Appellants has also commenced by
framing of charge on 12.06.2025 under Sections 302 and 440
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, five
prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the case
is still running at the stage of the prosecution evidence.
Social Investigation Report
6. There is no social background reports on record in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
3/24
regard to the appellants. Even social investigation report is only
with regard to appellant No.1.
7. As per social investigation report, the appellant
No.1 is physically fit and not suffering from any handicap. He is
unmarried. His conduct towards his parents is cordial. He is
religious in nature. He has no habit of smoking and drinking
liquor or taking narcotics or playing gambling. He is found to be
disciplined. He has studied up to Intermediate in Science, but he
has no any professional degree. The most of his friends are
educated and in the same age group belonging to the same
gender. The mental health of the appellant has been found to be
normal.
8. The grand parents of the Appellant are illiterate but
his father is also co-accused in this murder case and is lodged in
jail. His cousin brother is also an accused in a case of heinous
offence. His mother is illiterate.
9. As per education and family history as mentioned
in the psychological and mental test report of the appellant No.
2, he is 10th pass from local school and he occasionally does
work of laborer. His father has already passed away and his
mother is a housewife. His elder brother is also a laborer. He has
also one younger brother and one sister, who is already married.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
4/24
He also occasionally drinks liquor.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
10. I heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned APP for the State.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this
case and the informant is not an eye-witness and the case is
based on suspicion. As a matter of fact, the deceased was a
dealer in liquor and it is possible that he may have been killed
by his rival.
12. He further submits that appellant No. 2 was not
even named in the FIR and his name has transpired in the
confessional statement of co-accused.
13. He further submits that heinous nature of the
alleged offence is not a ground for rejecting the bail to a
juvenile in conflict with law. Hence, learned Children Court has
erroneously rejected the bail applications of the appellants
holding that the alleged offence is serious in nature touching the
conscience of general public.
14. He further submits that bail to the a juvenile in
conflict with law is a rule and denial of bail is an exception and
bail can be denied to juvenile-appellant only on limited grounds,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
5/24
as provided in proviso to Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015. But as per
the material on record, no ground is made out to deny bail to the
appellant. The observation of the Court below in the impugned
order is made without any basis. The impugned order is also
based on irrelevant considerations.
15. He further submits that in regard to bail under
Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, there no distinction made
between a juvenile of 16 years of age and a juvenile of age
between 16 to 18 years. As per Section 12 of J.J. Act, even if a
juvenile is between 16 to 18 years of age and he is alleged to
have committed heinous offence, he is entitled to get bail under
Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
16. He refers to and relies upon Lalu Kumar @ Lal
Babu v. State of Bihar (2019 (6) BLJ 216) passed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. He also refers to and relies upon
Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2024 SCC OnLine Pat 8499), Nitish Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2421), Chandan Kumar Paswan v.
State of Bihar (2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2434), Rakesh Rai v.
State of Bihar (2025 SCC OnLine Pat 374) and Avnish
Kumar V. State of Bihar and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine Pat
2529) passed by this Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
6/24
17. He also submits that the Appellants are detained in
the Observation Home since 28.06.2024 and 17.05.2024,
respectively.
Submissions on behalf of the State
18. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Appellants for bail submitting that the
Appellants have committed heinous offence of murder.
19. He also submits that the Appellants have been
found to be of 16 years and 15 days of age as per the school
certificate, but he is above 18 years of age as per the birth
certificate issued by Patna Municipal Corporation, which is also
filed on record.
20. He further submits that as per the preliminary
assessment, the Appellants have been found to be physically and
mentally competent to understand the nature and consequences
of the alleged offence and they are being tried by the Children
Court.
21. He further submits that the Trial is at its fag end.
The prosecution evidence has been already closed and even
three defence witnesses have been examined and the trial is still
running for defence evidence due to delaying tactics of the
Appellant. He also submits that before the Appellants started
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
7/24
living in the observation home, he was 10th class pass, but
during his stay at the observation home, he has passed
intermediate examination with first division. It means he is
doing well in the observation home. As such, their further stay
in the observation home is in their best interest.
22. They also submit that the benefit of Section 12 of
the J.J. Act, 2015 cannot be given to a juvenile who has been
found to be between 16 to 18 years of age and alleged to have
committed heinous offence.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
23. Before I consider the rival submission of the
parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which deals
with bail to the Juvenile. Section 12 of the Act reads as
follows:-
“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 bailable
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 person's release would defeat the
ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
8/24
denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not
released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge
of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home ¹[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 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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it
clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail
provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 or
any other law for time being in force. It further emerges that as
per Section 12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule and
refusal of the same is an exception and Juvenile can be denied
bail only on the following three grounds: (i) if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to
bring that person into association with any known criminal, or,
(ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological
danger, or, (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of
justice.
25. Hon’ble Apex Court in Juvenile in Conflict
with Law Vs. State of Rajasthan, as reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 5297 has also held that juvenile in conflict with law
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
9/24
has to be necessarily released on bail unless the proviso is
applicable and there must be clear finding regarding the
applicability of the proviso. The relevant part of judgment reads
as follows:
"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of
Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be
necessarily released on bail with or without surety or
placed under supervision of a probation officer or
under the care of any fit person unless proviso is
applicable.
7.We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the
JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially
the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ
Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of
the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could
not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law.
........................................................................................
9.Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded
a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the
juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for
last one year.
10.Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.
11.We direct that the juvenile in conflict with law shall
be released on bail without surety. However, the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board shall issue
appropriate directions to the jurisdictional Probation
Officer to keep the juvenile under supervision and to
submit periodical reports to the Board about the
conduct of the Juvenile."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. In Re-Exploitation of Children in Orphanages
in the State of T.N. Vs. Union of Indian and Ors. as reported
in (2020) 14 SCC 327, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
10/24
bail to a juvenile can be denied only on three grounds as
provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
"7. Sub-section (1) makes it absolutely clear that a
child alleged to be in conflict with law should 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. The only embargo created is that in
case the release of the child is likely to bring him into
association with known criminals or expose the child
to moral, physical or psychological danger or where
the release of the child would defeat the ends of
justice, then bail can be denied for reasons to be
recorded in writing. Even if bail is not granted, the
child cannot be kept in jail or police lock-up and has to
be kept in an observation home or place of safety."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. The High Court of Bombay in XYZ v. State of
Maharashtra, as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2790 has
held that grounds for denial of bail must be based on material.
The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"6.The mandate of the aforesaid provisions requires
that the CCL alleged to have committed a bailable or
non bailable offence and apprehended, shall be release
on bail with or without surety. The proviso to Section
12(1) puts an exception, where there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the release of CCL is likely to
bring him into the association with any known criminal
or exposed him to moral, physical or sociological
danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
It is therefore, evident that the denial of bail to the CCL
shall be for specific reasons akin to above proviso.
………………………………………………………...
9. There is nothing on record to indicate that the CCL
is likely to come in association with the known
criminals or get exposed to moral, physical or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
11/24
sociological danger or his release would defeat the
ends of justice. In the wake of aforesaid circumstances
the case is made out to allow this Revision Application
and to release the CCL on bail by setting aside the
impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed.
Hence following order:"
(Emphasis supplied)
28. It also emerges that seriousness of the alleged
offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant
considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
Even the child who is 16 years or above 16 years of age and is
alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to
get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no
classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act,
2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section 12 is applicable to all
juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any
nature. (Also refer to Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu Vs. State of
Bihar, 2019 (6) BLJ 2016).
29. Karnataka High Court in XXX (accused before
the J.J. Board) Vs. State and Others as reported in
MANU/KA/3957/2024 has also held that Section 12 of the J.J.
Act, 2015 is applicable even to a juvenile who is being tried as
adult by Children Court and bail to him can be denied only on
the grounds as provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"9. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
12/24
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the
time being in force, a child, who is produced before the
Board, shall be released on bail subject to proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is very
clear that even if the child is ordered to be tried as a
adult, as provided under Section 18(3) of the Act of
2015, for the purpose of his bail application, Section
12 of the Act of 2015 would be applicable and his bail
application cannot be considered under the provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure. As is evident from
Section 12 of the Act of 2015, the only embargo in not
releasing a child on bail is that there appears a
reasonable ground that his release is likely to bring him
into any association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or that release of such a person would defeat the ends
of justice. The three disentitlement categories
contemplated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act
of 2015, would not come in the way of the petitioner's
application being considered under Section 12 of the
Act of 2015 for the following reasons:-
(a) The nature of crime committed by the petitioner is
not likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger; (b) There is no such report
available on record which suggests that the petitioner is
likely to be exposed to moral, physical and
psychological danger; (c) The victim girl and her
parents do not apprehend any danger from the
petitioner and they have appeared before the Special
Court and stated that they have no objection for
enlarging the petitioner on bail."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. Allahabad High Court in Radhika (Juvenile)
Vs. State of U.P., as reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4911
has also held that under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, nature
and character of the alleged crime is not a relevant consideration
and bail can be denied to a juvenile only on the grounds as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
13/24
provided in the Proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The
relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"27.It is explicit from the plain reading of Section 12
of the Act that irrespective of nature and character of
the crime, if a ‘child’ brought by the police or appears
before the Board, such child shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or any other law enforced in time, “shall’ be
released on bail with or without surety under the
supervision of Probation Officer or under the care of
any fit person. The word “fit person’ is defined under
section 2(28) of the Act, means any person prepared to
owe responsibility of a child for a specific purpose and
after making due enquiry in this behalf, the Board may
give the custody of child in the hand of “fit person’.
Thus, it is clear that the child delinquent has got a right
to be released on bail with or without surety and the
gravity, nature and depth of the offence shall not come
into the way.
28. However, in the proviso of Section 12(1) of the
Act, there are three embargoes/riders; namely; (a) if
there appears reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into association
with any known criminal or; (b) expose that person as
moral, physical or psychological danger or; (c) the
person's release would defeat the ends of justice, the
Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances lead to such a decision.
29. From the plain reading of the above proviso, it has
been clearly borne out that (1) the juvenile delinquent
has got unqualified right to seek bail irrespective of the
gravity, depth and seriousness of the offence; (2) his
bail could be denied strictly on the three grounds, as
mentioned under the proviso of Section 12 of the Act
by the Board”.
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Punjab and Haryana High Court has also
held in Vishvas vs. State of Punjab as reported in
MANU/PH/0067/2021 that under Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015,
the nature and gravity of the alleged offence is not relevant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
14/24
while considering bail application to a juvenile. Bail can be
denied to a juvenile under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 only
on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act and there must be material on record in support of the
grounds. It has also held that ‘ends of justice being defeated’
has to be considered in the context of the welfare of the
juvenile. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"7. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12
of the J.J. Act, it appears that the intention of the
legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of
the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have
been committed by him, and bail can be declined only
in such cases where reasonable grounds are there for
believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile
into association of any known criminal or expose him
to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice. Meaning
thereby, as per aforesaid provision, a juvenile can be
denied the concession of bail, if any of the three
contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the J.J.
Act is available. Similar view was observed in cases
Manoj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC 995,
Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/1042/2005
: 2006(1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
MANU/RH/0549/2005 : 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 530
and Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v. State of
Rajasthan MANU/RH/1038/2005 : 2005(4) Crimes
649.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also
not pointed out any material available on record to
show that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the petitioner is likely to come into the association
of any known criminal if released on bail, or his
release will expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger. The order passed is mechanical
and without adhering to the provisions of Section 12(1)
of the J.J. Act, which specifies that 'the Board shall
record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances that led to such a decision.'
………………………………………………………...
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
15/24
12. The Supreme Court and various High Courts, time
and again have reiterated the well settled position of
law, that gravity of offence is immaterial in deciding
the bail application. Bail of a child in conflict with law
cannot be rejected in a routine manner and if the bail is
declined, a reasoned order has to be given by the
Board. A juvenile has to be released on bail
mandatorily unless and until the exceptions carved out
in proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015 itself
are made out. The exceptions are noted being:-
a) a reasonable ground for believing that the release is
likely to bring the juvenile into association with any
known criminal;
b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral,
physical or psychological danger; and
c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
........................................................................................
..................................................
14. The third exception namely 'ends of justice being
defeated' has to be considered in the context of the
welfare of the juvenile, as has been held by the Delhi
High Court in Master Abhishek (Minor) Vs. State
(Delhi) MANU/DE/0445/2005 : 2005 VI AD Delhi 18.
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan
High Court in Gau v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 as reported in
SCC OnLine Raj 2526. The relevant part of the judgment reads
as follows :
"7.The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015
conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to
the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the
offence, alleged to have been committed by him and
bail can be denied only in the case where there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or that his release would defeat
ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
33. Here, it would be also pertinent to point out that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
16/24
the ends of justice as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act is drastically different to one as used in the context of
penal statutes. The ends of justice in the context of any Act is
ascertained on the basis of the purpose and object of that Act
and the objective of the J.J. Act is to reform and rehabilitate the
juveniles and not to punish them, as emerges from the preamble
to the J.J. Act, which reads as follows:
“An Act to consolidate and amend the law
relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict
with law and children in need of care and protection by
catering to their basic needs through proper care,
protection, development, treatment, social reintegration,
by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication
and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and
for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and
institutions and bodies established, hereinunder and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. The purpose and object of the J.J. Act manifests
in Section 3 also of the J.J. Act, providing for general principles
to be followed in the administration of the Act. Section 3 of the
Act reads as follows:
“3. General principles to be followed in administration
of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments,
the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—
………………………………………………………...
(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.
……………………………………………………………
(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
17/24
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.
(vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised
including those of family and community, for promoting
the well-being, facilitating development of identity and
providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to
reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for
intervention under this Act.
(viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial
or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes
pertaining to a child.”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. High Court of Uttaranchal in X (Juvenile in
conflict with law) Vs. State of Uttarakhand, as reported in
2025 SCC OnLine Utt 157 has also held that the Juvenile
Justice Act is child friendly and all decisions regarding the child
under the Act should be based on primary consideration of the
best interest of the child. It has been also held that any juvenile
in conflict with law is entitled to get released on bail
irrespective of nature of the offence. Bail could be denied to him
only on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12 (1)
of the J.J. Act., 2015. The relevant part of judgment reads as
follows:
8. For a child in conflict with law, every offence is
bailable. The CIL is entitled to be released on bail as
per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”),
irrespective of the offence having been classified
bailable or non bailable. The only rider is the proviso
to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The child
may not be released on bail, if there are grounds to
believe that the release is likely to bring that person
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
18/24
into association with any known criminal or expose the
said person to moral, physical or psychological danger
or the release of the person would defeat the ends of
justice.
9. The JJ Act is, in fact, child friendly. The central
theme is that the child interest is supreme. Section 3 of
the JJ Act 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 sub section (v) speaks
of primary responsibility. According to it, “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”.
........................................................................................
12.Nothing has been shown that if released the CIL
would come into contact with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
36. The J.J. Act is based on the belief that children are
the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with
law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and
rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish
its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with
law would be self-destructive for the society.
37. As such, if the keeping of the child in custody is
helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only
then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the
ends of justice. (Also refer to Abhishek Vs. State, 205 CriLJ
(NOC) 115 (Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, 2006
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
19/24
CriLJ 4759).
38. It also emerges from Section 3 of the Act that
Reformatory or Observation Home is only one of the measures
contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating
the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in
conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the
best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the
Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of
the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or
foster parents of the child and it has been contemplated that
every child in conflict with law has right to be reunited with his
family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict
with law has been contemplated as the last resort. Such
principles manifest in clauses v, xii and xiii of Section 3 of the
Act which read as follows:
“3. General principles to be followed in administration
of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments,
the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—
………………………………………………………...
(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.
………………………………………………………….
(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-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
20/24
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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. Hence, under the J.J. Act, 2015, a child in conflict
with law is not expected to be treated as an adult offender. J.J.
Boards/Courts are required to adopt fundamentally a different
approach while dealing with juveniles in conflict with law. They
are expected to deal with such juveniles with all sensibility and
responsibility, keeping in mind the purpose and object of the J.J.
Act to reform and rehabilitate the child, so as to make him a
responsible and productive member of the society. The society
would get ruined if such children are dealt with punitive
approach.
40. Similar view has been taken by this Court in
Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar Case (supra), Nitish
Kumar Case (supra), Chandan Kumar Paswan Case (supra),
Rakesh Rai Case (supra) and Avnish Kumar case (supra).
Summary of the legal Provisions
41. Hence, it is clearly found that notwithstanding
anything contained in the code of criminal procedure or any
other law for time being in force, bail to a juvenile in conflict
with law is governed by Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
21/24
41(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable
to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination
of any nature. Even a juvenile, aged between 16 to 18 years and
being accused of heinous offence and being tried by Children
Court, is entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
41(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged
offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12
of the J.J. Act.
41(3). “The ends of justice” as used in the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act is drastically different to one as
used in general criminal jurisprudence. If the detention of the
juvenile at Observation Home or other institutions as
contemplated under the J.J. Act is helpful in protection,
development and rehabilitation of the juvenile, only then it can
be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
41(4). The family of the child in conflict with law is
the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the
J.J.Act. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law is
the last resort and every child in conflict with law has right to be
reunited with his family at the earliest.
41(5). Under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail to a
juvenile is a rule and the refusal of the same is an exception and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
22/24
it can be denied only on the grounds as provided in the proviso
to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
41(6). The denial of bail must be reasoned and the
grounds of denial must be based on relevant facts and
circumstances, as emerging from the material on record. Social
Investigation Report is one of the most important such material.
Perusal of such report is mandatory as per Section 15 (2) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The Board/Court is required to know not only
about the offence committed by the juvenile but even about the
socio-economic conditions/circumstances under which the
offence was committed, so that, appropriate order in regard to
the juvenile in conflict with law could be passed with intent to
reform and rehabilitate the juvenile and reintegrate him with the
mainstream of the society.
41(7). All resources have to be mobilized including
those of the family and the community for reforming and
rehabilitating the juvenile in conflict with law to make him
productive member of the society. (Refer to Section 3 (vii) of
the J.J. Act, 2015.)
Present Case
42. Coming to the case on hand, I find that both the
appellants, along with other co-accused, have allegedly
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
23/24
committed murder of the son of the informant. The father of
appellant No. 1 is also a co-accused in this case.
43. I further find that both the appellants have been
found to be aged between 16-18 years and physically and
mentally competent to understand the nature and consequences
of the alleged offence and they are being tried by the Children
Court. During trial, five prosecution witnesses have been
already examined supporting the prosecution case against them.
44. I further find that regular bail applications of the
appellants have been rejected on the sole ground of serious
nature of the alleged offence.
45. In view of the discussions of legal provisions
regarding bail to a juvenile in conflict with law under the J.J.
Act, it has been clearly held that serious nature of the alleged
offence is not a ground for rejecting the bail of a juvenile under
Section 12 of the J.J. Act. As such, the impugned order is not
sustainable on the ground as stated by learned Children Court.
46. However, after scrutiny of the relevant material on
record, I find that the father of the appellant No. 1 is also a co-
accused in the present case of murder and his cousin brother is
also an accused of heinous offence. As such, family
environment of appellant No. 1 is not conducive for reformation
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1451 of 2025 dt.24-04-2026
24/24
and rehabilitation of appellant No. 1 and hence, it would defeat
the ends of justice, if he is released on bail. It would be in the
best interest of the child that he continues in the Observation
Home pursuing his further studies.
47. As far as appellant No. 2 is concerned, I again find
that his father has already passed away and there is no such
responsible person at his home who can take care of his proper
development and rehabilitation. Hence, even his release on bail
would defeat the ends of justice, because his stay in the
Observation Home would be in his best interest.
48. The present Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
49. LCR be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
S.Ali/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.05.2026.
Transmission Date 04.05.2026.
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.