Patna High Court
XXXversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The High Court held that bail denial was justified because the appellant’s criminal antecedents, his father’s criminal background, and the recovery of arms indicated that release would defeat the ends of justice, satisfying the proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act.
Summary
The appellant, a 16‑year‑old juvenile, was charged under IPC 302 read with 34 and the Arms Act for the murder of an informant’s son. The Juvenile Justice Board found him mentally competent and ordered trial as an adult in a Children Court, which denied bail citing the prosecution’s inquest and post‑mortem reports, the appellant’s criminal antecedents, and an unsatisfactory family environment. The appellant appealed, arguing that bail is a rule under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and that the grounds for denial were not substantiated. The High Court examined the statutory framework, held that bail can be denied only on the three specific grounds in the proviso to Section 12(1) and found that the appellant’s criminal background, his father’s involvement in crime, and the recovery of arms justified a finding that release would defeat the ends of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the bail denial upheld. The court also directed the observation home to continue the appellant’s education and vocational training.
Issues considered
- Whether a juvenile aged 16‑15 days can be denied bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether the grounds cited by the Children Court (criminal antecedents, family environment, seriousness of offence) satisfy the proviso to Section 12(1).
- Whether the progress of reformation in the observation home affects the ‘ends of justice’ analysis.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 15(2), 19, 3
Subjects
- bail
- juvenile justice
- Section 12
- observation home
- criminal antecedents
- heinous offence
- trial as adult
- ends of justice
- social investigation report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1471 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2024 Thana- ISLAMPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
XXX (Real Name Withheld)
.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate
Mr. Rashid Zafar, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Madhav Raj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 04-05-2026
Introduction
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the impugned order dated 18.12.2024, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Biharsharif,
Nalanda in Children Case No. 3 of 2024, arising out of Islampur
P.S. Case No. 100 of 2024, whereby learned Children Court has
rejected the application of the appellant holding that the
prosecution case has been supported by inquest report as well as
post-mortem report and the witnesses examined during trial. The
Children Court has also referred to Social Investigation Report
and Social Background Report to deny the bail. It has also been
held by learned Children Court that the appellant has criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
2/28
antecedents and he has no conducive family environment and his
other family members are of criminal nature and they do not
control the appellant from committing any crime. It has also
been held that the alleged offence is serious in nature supported
by the prosecution evidence.
Factual Background
2. Islampur P.S. Case No. 100 of 2024 was
registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and other two
co-accused.
3. Vide order dated 28.05.2024, the appellant was
found to be juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board. As per school
certificate, his date of birth was 23.02.2008 and hence, his age
on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 07.03.2024, was found to
be 16 years and 15 days. Vide order dated, 13.08.2024,
preliminary assessment of the appellant was conducted and as
per report of the psychologist, he was found to be physically and
mentally competent to understand the nature and consequences
of the crime allegedly committed by him and hence, the case of
the appellant was sent to Children Court for trial of the Appellant
as an adult. After receipt of the record, learned Children Court
vide order dated 07.10.2024, passed under Section 19 of the J.J.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
3/28
Act, holding that the appellant is physically and mentally mature
and it would be proper to conduct trial of the juvenile as adult in
view of his age being 16 years and 15 days and alleged offence
being heinous in nature.
4. During trial, altogether nine prosecution
witnesses have been examined and now the appellant is
examining witnesses in his defence and three defence witnesses
have been already examined and the case is still running at the
stage of defence evidence.
Prosecution Case
5. As per the written report, when the informant and
his son were returning home and reached near the house of the
appellant, the appellant and his father started abusing the
informant and his son. On protest by the informant, the father of
the appellant asked the Appellant to shoot the informant dead. In
the meantime, one co-accused/Md. Akbar @ Jarla also reached
the place of occurrence with pistol. In pursuance of the order of
the father of the appellant, two people also brought pistol from
his house and shot at the son of the informant with intent to kill
him which hit him at the left side of the chest. Consequently, the
son of the informant fell down on the place of occurrence and
thereafter, co-accused/Md. Akbar also shot at the right side of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
4/28
chest of the informant. Thereafter, chaos developed and many
people assembled there and the son of the informant was referred
to Islampur Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.
Social Background Report of the Appellant
6. As per the Social Background report submitted
by the police, the Appellant is not handicapped, though his father
is handicapped and he is said to be involved in criminal activity.
The mother of the Appellant is a house wife. The sister of the
Appellant is 10th class pass. The family members of the
Appellant has tendency to commit crime. The Appellant is
unmarried and has habit of smoking and gambling. He is 10 th
class pass. Most of his friends are educated and elder to him and
belonging to the same gender, but they have criminal
background. The Appellant is not a victim of any maltreatment.
It is also stated by the police that the Appellant is being used by
the a gang in supply of narcotics. It is also opined by the police
that the Appellant has committed crime due to neglect by his
parents. It is also informed that at the place of occurrence, the
Appellant was injured by the general public, who had gathered
and he was taken to hospital. It is also stated in the Social
Background Report that the Appellant, due to the company of
people of criminal nature, had committed crime and was not
being controlled by his parents, and hence, he committed even
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
5/28
heinous crime of murder, and hence, he needs to be lodged in
observation home.
Social Investigation Report
7. As per the Social Investigation Report submitted by
the Probation Officer, the father of the Appellant is 45 years of
age and he is engaged in repairing work of batteries. He also
does fisheries work. He is also said to be engaged in illegal
activities and people of criminal nature visit his house. Presently,
he is lodged in Hilsa Jail. He has general health, but he is
handicapped. His mother is illiterate and is a housewife. His one
sister is 10th class pass. The behavior of the Appellant with his
parents and other family members is cordial. His father is co-
accused in the same case but he has no other criminal
antecedents. Other family members of the Appellant have no
criminal antecedents. The Appellant is a Muslim by religion but
he appears not to have deep interest in religion. His family has a
pucca house comprising eight rooms where his family lives.
Smoking and using narcotics have been also shown as his habits.
There is lack of discipline in his family. He has no employment.
His friends are elder in age and belong to the same gender, but
they are of criminal background. He has one criminal antecedent
by way of Islampur P.S. Case No. 99 of 2024 registered for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
6/28
offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act. It has been also informed that the Appellant has no
good company and conduct. He does not have interest in
education as per the information from the people.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
8. I heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
10. He further submits that though in the Social
Background Report and the Social Investigation Report, it has
been reported that the Appellant has company of criminal people,
the police or the Probation Officer have not given any details of
such persons who are of criminal nature and who are in company
of the Appellant. Though the police or the Probation Officer have
also shown that the Appellant has habit like smoking and
consuming narcotics, there is no basis for such opinion given by
the police as well as the Probation Officer.
11. He also submits that except his father, no other
family member has any criminal antecedents. The father of the
Appellant is a co-accused in the present case and he has one
more criminal antecedent by way of a theft case, in which he is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
7/28
on bail.
12. He also submits that the Appellant has passed
intermediate examination and he wants to pursue vocational
education and he undertakes to get the Appellant enrolled in a
vocational course like ITI and ensure that he does the vocational
course with all sincerity.
13. He further submits that bail to 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, 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.
14. 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.
15. He refers to and relies upon Lalu Kumar @ Lal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
8/28
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.
16. He also submits that the Appellant is detained in
the Observation Home for about two years since 04.04.2024.
Submissions on behalf of the State and Informant
17. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the Informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the
Appellant for bail submitting that the Appellant has committed
heinous offence of murder.
18. They also submit that the Appellant has 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.
19. They further submit that as per the priliminary
assessment, the Appellant has been found to be physically and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
9/28
mentally competent to understand the nature and consequences
of the alleged offence and he is being tried by the Children
Court.
20. They further submit that the Trial is at its fag end.
The prosecution evidence has been already closed and even three
defence witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
Appellant and the trial is still running for defence evidence due
to delaying tactics of the Appellant. They also submit that before
the Appellant started living in the observation home, he was 10 th
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, his further stay
in the observation home is in his best interest.
21. 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.
22. They also submit that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned children Court
denying bail to the appellant. The grounds for denial are well
founded. They also refer to the Social Background Report and
the Social Investigation Report, as per which the family
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
10/28
environment is not conducive for his reformation and proper
development. The father of the Appellant is not only the co-
accused in the present case but he is also said to be involved in
illicit activities. There is also a theft case lodged against him by
way of Islampur P.S. Case No. 670 of 2023.
23. They also point out that as per the Social
Background Report, the Appellant is in the company of persons
of criminal background.
24. They also submit that as per the prosecution
evidence, the prosecution case against the Appellant is fully
supported and there was even recovery of arms from his house,
and hence, one case under Arms Act is also lodged against the
Appellant bearing Islampur P.S. Case No. 99 of 2024.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
25. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
11/28
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
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)
26. 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.
27. Hon’ble Apex Court in Juvenile in Conflict with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
12/28
Law Vs. State of Rajasthan, as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 5297 has also held that juvenile in conflict with law 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)
28. 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.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
13/28
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)
29. 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 sociological danger
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
14/28
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)
30. 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).
31. 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
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
15/28
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)
32. 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 provided
in the Proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The relevant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
16/28
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)
33. 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 while
considering bail application to a juvenile. Bail can be denied to a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
17/28
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.'
………………………………………………………...
12. The Supreme Court and various High Courts, time
and again have reiterated the well settled position of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
18/28
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)
34. 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)
35. Here, it would be also pertinent to point out that
the ends of justice as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
19/28
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)
36. 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
ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
20/28
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)
37. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
21/28
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)
38. 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.
39. 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
CriLJ 4759).
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
22/28
40. 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-
united with his family at the earliest and to be restored to
the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
23/28
before coming under the purview of this Act, unless such
restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
41. 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.
42. 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
43. 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.
43(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
24/28
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.
43(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged
offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12
of the J.J. Act.
43(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.
43(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.
43(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
it can be denied only on the grounds as provided in the proviso
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
25/28
to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
43(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.
43(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
44. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the appellant,
along with other two co-accused, is alleged to have committed
murder of son of the informant and he is found to be 16 years
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
26/28
and 15 days old and mature to understand the nature and the
consequence of the alleged offence and he is being tried by the
Children Court and during trial, nine prosecution witnesses have
supported the prosecution case against the appellant. Even the
appellant has examined three witnesses in his defence and the
trial is still at the stage of defence evidence.
45. I further find that the regular bail petition of the
appellant has been rejected by learned Children Court by the
impugned order on the following grounds:-
(i) The prosecution case has been supported by inquest
report as well as postmortem report and the witnesses
examined during the trial.
(ii) The appellant has criminal antecedents.
(iii) The family environment of the appellant is not
conducive for his reformation and proper development.
(iv) The family members of the appellant are of criminal
nature.
(v) The family members of the appellant do not control
the appellant from committing crime.
(vi) Alleged offence is serious in nature supported by the
prosecution evidence.
46. It is true that as per material on record, the father of
the appellant is a co-accused in this murder case and he has also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
27/28
one more criminal antecedent of theft in which he is on bail. As
per social background report as well as social investigation
report, the father of the appellant is stated to be involved in
illegal activities.
47. I also find that the appellant has one criminal
antecedent by way of criminal case registered under the Arms
Act and in prosecution evidence it has come that Arms and
ammunition were recovered from the house of the appellant on
raid by the Police.
48. I further find that in the Observation Home, the
appellant has passed intermediate examination in 1 st division.
Hence, it may be said that reformatory process is going well in
the Observation Home.
49. Seeing the criminal background of the father of the
appellant and criminal antecedent of the appellant himself and
recovery of arms and ammunition from the house of the
appellant, release of the appellant on bail would defeat the ends
of justice.
50. Moreover, the reformation process of the appellant is
going on well in the Observation Home as he is properly
pursuing his studies there. He has passed intermediate
examination in first division. Concerned authority of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1471 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
28/28
Observation Home is directed to ensure that the appellant
pursues his studies further or he is given vocational training.
51. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order. The present Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
52. LCR be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith
along with a copy of this judgment.
53. With approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, circulate a
copy of this judgment amongst the Presiding Officers of the
Juvenile Justice Boards and the Children Courts, and also send a
copy of this judgment to the Director of Bihar Judicial Academy
for discussion on this judgment in the training programmes for
the concerned Judicial Officers.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/Ravi
Shankar/Shoaib
AFR/NAFR A.F.R
CAV DATE 23.04.2026
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.