Patna High Court
Ajay Ram @ Ajay Kumar RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Bail to a juvenile in conflict with law must be granted unless one of the three specific proviso grounds in Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 is satisfied, which was not the case here.
Summary
The appeal concerned the rejection of regular bail for a 17‑year‑old accused of raping a 17‑year‑old girl, where the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 applied. The Juvenile Justice Board had preliminarily assessed the appellant as mature and ordered trial as an adult, but the Children Court denied bail on the ground of seriousness of the offence and prosecution material. The High Court held that under Section 12 of the JJ Act bail to a child in conflict with law is a rule and can be denied only on the three specific grounds in the proviso, none of which were established. The Court noted that the Social Background and Investigation Reports showed no criminal antecedent or risk, and that poverty or seriousness of the offence are irrelevant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and bail was granted with conditions and welfare directions. The judgment reaffirmed the child‑friendly, rehabilitative ethos of the JJ Act and the primacy of the child’s best interests.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 to a juvenile tried as an adult.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence or the material on record can justify denial of bail to a juvenile.
- Whether the Social Background Report and Social Investigation Report were required to be considered in the bail application.
- Whether any of the three proviso grounds for denial of bail under Section 12(1) were satisfied.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- juvenile bail
- Section 12 JJ Act
- children in conflict with law
- observation home
- best interest of child
- rehabilitation
- social background report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1732 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2024 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas
======================================================
XXX, (Real name withheld)
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX, (Real name withheld)
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2026
Introduction
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, passed by learned
Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge,
Children Court, Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R. Case No. 10 of 2024
arising out of J.J.B Case No. 223 of 2024 related with Dawath
P.S. Case No.122 of 2024, whereby learned Children Court has
rejected the regular bail application of the Appellant holding
that the allegation against the Appellant is serious in nature and
the prosecution case is supported by the material on record.
2. The Dawath P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 was registered
on the written report of the mother of the victim girl and as per
allegation, the Appellant has committed rape upon the victim.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
2/23
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
the Appellant in the POCSO Court as the victim was 17 years
old. However, in view of the finding that the Appellant was
minor, the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board and
after assessment of the age, the Juvenile Justice Board found the
Appellant 17 years 3 months and 12 days old. Thereafter,
preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the J.J. Act, 2015
was conducted by learned J.J. Board and it was found that the
Appellant was mature enough to understand the nature and
consequences of the alleged offence, and hence, the matter was
sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for his trial as adult and
during the pendency of the trial before learned Children Court,
the regular bail application on behalf of the Appellant was filed
and the same was rejected by learned Children Court by the
impugned order.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
4. I heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned
APP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that learned Children Court has
erroneously rejected the regular bail application of the Appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
3/23
on irrelevant consideration of serious nature of the alleged
offence and sufficient material on record in support of the
prosecution case. However, as per Section 12 of the J.J. Act, bail
to a Juvenile cannot be rejected on such ground and grant of bail
to a Juvenile in conflict with law is a rule and denial of bail is an
exception and bail can be denied to the appellant only on the
grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act,
but learned Children Court has not considered the grounds as
provided in Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
6. He further submits that Learned Children Court has
not considered the Social Background Report as well as the
Social Investigation Report which are required to be looked into
while considering the regular bail application of the Juvenile in
conflict with law and as per these reports, no ground is made out
for rejecting the regular bail application of the Appellant,
because there is no criminal antecedent either of the Appellant
or his family members including his father though they are poor.
He also submits that the detention of the Appellant in the
Observation Home would not be in the best interest of the child.
The Appellant should have been released with certain conditions
to ensure proper development of the Appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
4/23
Submissions on behalf of the State
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Appellant for bail submitting that there
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. As per
allegation, the Appellant has committed rape upon a minor girl,
which is serious in nature and there is sufficient material also in
support of the prosecution case.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
8. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
5/23
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)
9. 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.
10. 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
has to be necessarily released on bail unless the proviso is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
6/23
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)
11. 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
bail to a juvenile can be denied only on three grounds as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
7/23
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)
12. 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 or his release would defeat the
ends of justice. In the wake of aforesaid circumstances
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
8/23
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)
13. 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).
14. 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
Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
9/23
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)
15. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
10/23
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)
16. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
11/23
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.'
………………………………………………………...
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.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
12/23
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)
17. 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)
18. 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.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
13/23
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)
19. 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
harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
14/23
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)
20. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
15/23
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)
21. 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.
22. 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.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
16/23
23. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
17/23
in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless
such restoration and repatriation is not in his best
interest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. 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.
25. 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
26. 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.
26(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
18/23
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.
26(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged offence is
not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12 of the J.J.
Act.
26(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.
26(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.
26(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.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
19/23
to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
26(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.
26(7). All resources have to be mobilised 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
27. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the appellant
is alleged to have committed rape upon the victim girl, who is
17 years of age.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
20/23
28. I also find that the Appellant has been assessed to be
17 years 3 months and 12 days old on the date of commission of
the alleged offence and after preliminary assessment, he has
been found to be physically and mentally mature to understand
the consequences of the alleged offence and he is being tried as
adult by the Children Court.
29. I further find that the regular bail application of the
Appellant has been rejected on the ground of serious nature of
the alleged offence and material on record in support of the
prosecution case against the Appellant. However, in view of the
legal provisions as discussed above, serious nature of the
alleged offence or material on record in support of the
prosecution case is not a relevant ground for rejection of bail to
any Juvenile in conflict with law, whether he is aged between 16
and 18 years. The Social Background Report as well as the
Social Investigation Report is very much relevant and required
to be looked into at the time of consideration of the regular bail
application filed on behalf of the Juvenile in conflict with law,
but learned Children Court has not considered these reports
despite these reports being on record and learned Children Court
has erroneously rejected the regular bail application on
irrelevant consideration.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
21/23
30. After perusal of the Social Background Report as well
as the Social Investigation Report, there is nothing, on account
of which, one may infer that the environment at the home of the
Appellant is not conducive for his reformation and rehabilitation
when no family member has criminal antecedent. Even the
Appellant has no criminal antecedent and it is also reported that
the alleged occurrence had taken place on account of love
affairs between the Appellant and the alleged victim, which was
not acceptable to the family members of the victim.
31. I further find that the Appellant belongs to the weaker
section of the Society and he is suffering from poverty. His
father works as a labourer. As such, poverty of the Appellant
may be a hurdle in proper development of the Juvenile.
However, poverty of a child cannot be a ground for rejection of
bail to him because no one can take better care of a child than
his parents and if the Appellant is released with certain positive
measures, there may be proper reformation and development as
well as rehabilitation of the child.
32. Hence, release of the appellant with certain conditions
and some positive measures would be in the best interest of the
Appellant.
33. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed directing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
22/23
the appellant to be released on bail, subject to furnishing the bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- and undertaking by his father by way of
affidavit that he would keep vigil on the appellant regarding his
habits and he would not allow the appellant to come in contact
with any criminal persons and take care of other developmental
needs of the appellant and the appellant would attend the Court
as and when required or directed.
34. As the appellant and his family are suffering from
poverty, learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Rohtas at Sasaram is directed to assist the appellant in getting
benefit of welfare schemes of the Government like Rasan Card
and getting grains from P.D.S. under the Government scheme, if
he is not already getting such grains. District Magistrate, Rohtas
at Sasaram is also directed to cooperate and collaborate with
learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rohtas at
Sasaram in the aforesaid efforts. Learned Secretary DLSA and
District Magistrate would also explore the possibility of getting
loan by the appellant and his father for doing some business or
any other activity for their livelihood.
35. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
36. Let a copy of this order be also sent to learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1732 of 2025 dt.05-05-2026
23/23
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rohtas and District
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram for their information and needful.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09.05.2026
Transmission Date 09.05.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.