Patna High Court
XXXversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Bail must be granted to the juvenile appellant as none of the proviso grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are satisfied.
Summary
The appellant, a 16‑year‑old juvenile, was charged with gang‑rape under Section 376(D) of the IPC and related offences under the POCSO Act. After preliminary assessment he was found physically and mentally mature and was tried as an adult, but his regular bail petition was rejected by the Children Court on the grounds that his release might associate him with criminals, expose him to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which makes bail the rule for juveniles and allows denial only on the three specific grounds in its proviso. The Court found no material on record to satisfy any of those grounds and held that the lower court misapplied the concept of “ends of justice.” Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was released on bail with conditions and assistance for his family’s welfare.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 applies to a juvenile aged 16‑18 tried as an adult.
- Whether the three proviso grounds for denial of bail under Section 12(1) are satisfied in the present case.
- Whether the lower court correctly interpreted the meaning of “ends of justice” under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. relevant provisions referenced
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376(D)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 67(A)(c)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 15(2), 18(3), 3, 94(2)(ii)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- juvenile justice
- bail
- Section 12
- conflict with law
- adult trial of juvenile
- ends of justice
- gang rape
- observation home
- best interest of child
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2068 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2020 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran
======================================================
XXX, (Real name withheld)
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX, (Real name withheld)
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Ambuj, Advocate
Ms. Anushka Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
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 15.04.2023, passed by learned
Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra in C.C. Case No.
11 of 2022 (Marhowrah), P.S. Case No. 298 of 2020, registered
against the Appellant and other two co-accused for the offence
punishable under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 67(A)(c) of the I.T. Act, 2008, whereby the regular bail
petition of the Appellant has been rejected by learned Court
below, holding as follows:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
2/28
“7. Thus, it is conspicuous from SBR and SIR that
juvenile petitioner is in conflict with law on account of
friends of his age and he is in conflict with law on account
of dispute relating to crop. Hence, I am of view that
release of such juvenile petitioner on bail may bring him
into association of same set of persons under whose
influence he is in conflict with law. It would also expose
him to moral, physical and psychological danger and it
would also defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, taking
care of best interest of juvenile, I am of the view that he
should not be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, bail petition
of juvenile petitioner namely Pankaj Kumar is hereby
rejected. Office Clerk of this court is directed to send a
copy of this order to the learned Jail Superintendent for
necessary course of action. Put up this record on
03.05.2023 for prosecution evidence.”
Factual Background
2. The prosecution emerging from the written report filed
by the victim is that on 12.04.2020 at 7:00 PM when she had
gone for attending the call of nature, her modesty was outraged
and gang rape was committed upon her by the Appellant and
two other co-accused.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against
the Appellant and other co-accused for the offence punishable
under Section 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4
and 6 of the POCSO Act on 02.07.2020. Subsequently, case of
one of the co-accused was separated and sent to the J.J. Board
vide order dated 15.01.2021 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate. Vide order dated 26.02.2021/10.08.2021 the case of
the Appellant was also separated and sent to the J.J. Board. Vide
order dated 15.12.2021, the Appellant was declared juvenile
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
3/28
under Section 94(2)(ii) of the J.J. Act and his age was found to
be 16 years 10 months and 3 days. Vide order dated 15.07.2022,
the J.J. Board conducted preliminary assessment under Section
15 of the J.J. Act and he was found to be physically and
mentally mature and hence, in view of the heinous nature of the
alleged offence of gang rape and the age of the Appellant being
between 16 and 18 years, the case of the Appellant was
transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children
Court, Saran at Chhapra, for his trial as an adult. Learned
Children Court, vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 has
rejected the regular bail application of the Appellant. Hence, the
Appellant is before this Court.
4. Trial has already commenced. And during trial, charge
has been framed under Section 376(D) and Section 4 and 6 of
the POCSO Act and the trial the case is at the stage of
prosecution evidence. So far, five prosecution witnesses have
been examined and all of them have been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
Social Background Report of the Appellant
5. As per the Social Background Report of the Appellant,
the Appellant is physically fit having no physical handicap. In
his family, besides his parents, he has one brother and two
sisters. The father of the Appellant is illiterate and works as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
4/28
labourer. His mother is a housewife. His both sisters are married
whereas his brother is also a labourer and his parents also work
as labourer. The conduct of the Appellant towards his family
members is cordial. He has general interest in religion. The
family of the Appellant has one pucca house and two katha of
cultivable land. The Appellant is said to have a habit of drinking
liquor. The Appellant is said to have studied up to class three
from a government school and he has no technical education.
He works as a labourer and helps the family in its maintenance.
His friends are said to be of different age. Some of them are
elder, whereas some are younger to him and some are equal to
his age. The conduct of the Appellant towards his friends are
normal and good towards his neighbours and villagers. It is also
reported that the wheat crop of the Appellant was burnt by a girl
from Kanpura Village. Hence, he had altercation with that girl.
It is also opined by the police that poor economic condition and
immediate dispute regarding burning of wheat crop belonging to
the Appellant was the factor for commission of the offence.
Social Investigation Report of the Appellant
6. As per the Social Investigation Report, the
Appellant has no bad habit, like smoking, drinking liquor or any
other bad habits and he has studied up to class fifth. Most of his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
5/28
friends are illiterate and elder to him and he has not been victim
of any crime. It has been also opined that the occurrence had
taken place on account of the circumstances of burning of his
wheat crop.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
7. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned APP for the State.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case
on account of previous enmity due to land dispute between the
family of the Appellant and the Informant. There is undue delay
of four days without any persuasive explanation.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that both co-accused have been also acquitted of all the charges
against them. The minor co-accused has been acquitted by
learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chhapra itself in J.J.B. Case No.
747 of 2022 vide order dated 18.01.2022, whereas adult co-
accused, Manu Kumar @ Monu Kumar has been acquitted by
Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 200 of
2023 vide judgment dated 10.02.2026.
10. He further submits that grounds for rejection of
bail to the appellant by learned Children Court are not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
6/28
sustainable as per material on record.
11. 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 a juvenile-appellant only on limited
grounds, as provided in the 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.
12. 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. Here, 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
7/28
OnLine Pat 2434) and 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.
13. He also submits that the Appellant is detained in
the Observation Home since 16.04.2020.
14. Hence, in view of the learned counsel for the
appellant, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of
law and liable to be set aside, and the appeal deserves to be
allowed, releasing the appellant on bail.
Submissions on behalf of the State
15. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Appellant for bail submitting that the
Appellant has committed heinous offence of gang rape.
16. He further submits that after preliminary
assessment, the appellant 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 children Court.
17. He also submits 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.
18. He also submits that there is no illegality or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
8/28
infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned children
Court denying bail to the appellant. The grounds for denial are
well founded. In view of learned A.P.P, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
19. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
9/28
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)
20. 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.
21. 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
applicable and there must be clear finding regarding the
applicability of the proviso. The relevant part of judgment reads
as follows:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
10/28
"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)
22. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
11/28
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)
23. 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
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)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
12/28
24. 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).
25. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
13/28
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)
26. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
14/28
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)
27. 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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
15/28
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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
16/28
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)
28. 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)
29. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
17/28
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)
30. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
18/28
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)
31. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
19/28
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)
32. 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.
33. 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).
34. It also emerges from Section 3 of the Act that
Reformatory or Observation Home is only one of the measures
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
20/28
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, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless
such restoration and repatriation is not in his best
interest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
21/28
35. 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.
36. 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
37. 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.
37(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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
22/28
being accused of heinous offence and being tried by Children
Court, is entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
37(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged offence is
not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12 of the J.J.
Act.
37(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.
37(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.
37(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
to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
37(6). The denial of bail must be reasoned and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
23/28
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.
37(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
38. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the appellant,
along with other two co-accused, has been alleged to have
committed gang rape. However, during trial, five prosecution
witnesses have been examined, but none of them has supported
the prosecution case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
24/28
39. I further find that both co-accused have been already
acquitted – the juvenile co-accused has been acquitted by J.J.
Board itself, whereas other co-accused has been acquitted by the
Appellate Court.
40. I further find that the appellant has been assessed to
be 16 years 10 months and 3 days old on the date of commission
of the 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 children Court.
41. I further find that the bail application of the appellant
has been rejected on the following grounds :
(i) The release of the appellant may bring him into
association of criminal persons.
(ii) The release of the appellant may expose him to moral,
physical and psychological danger.
(iii) The release of the appellant may defeat the ends of
justice.
42. However, after scrutiny of the material on record, I
find that none of the grounds for rejection of bail by learned
Children Court to the appellant is sustainable. There is no
material on record to show that the appellant was in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
25/28
company of known criminals, because no details of such
criminals, with whom the appellant was associated, has been
given either in the Social Background Report or Social
Investigation Report. There is also nothing on record to show
that release of the appellant would expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger.
43. I also find that learned Children Court has wrongly
held that release of the appellant may defeat the ends of justice.
Learned Children Court appears not to be aware of the meaning
and import of “ends of justice” in context of the Juvenile Justice
Act. The ends of justice 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 could be said that
release of the child would defeat the ends of justice. But as per
the facts and circumstances of the case, one cannot say that
release of the appellant would defeat the ends of justice. I find
that none of the family members has any criminal antecedents
and even the appellant has no criminal antecedent and on
account of poverty, the appellant and his father work as laborers.
As far as report regarding bad habits of the Appellant is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
26/28
concerned, like smoking, drinking etc., there is no credible
material on record to show that the appellant has any such bad
habits.
44. Moreover, the family is the best and first desirable
institution for reformation and rehabilitation of the child, if there
is conducive environment at home and no one can say that
family environment of the Appellant is not proper for him. No
one can take better care of any child than the parents of the
child. The poverty of the appellant and his family is no doubt a
great hurdle in proper development of the appellant. But on such
ground, the right of the child to get re-united with the family at
the earliest could not be denied to the appellant.
45. Hence, release of the appellant with certain conditions
and some positive measures would be in the best interest of the
Appellant.
46. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed directing
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
27/28
as and when required or directed.
47. As the appellant and his family are suffering from
poverty, learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Saran 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, Saran at
Chhapra is also directed to cooperate and collaborate with
learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Saran 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.
48. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court
concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
49. Let a copy of this order be also sent to learned
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Saran and District
Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra for their information and needful.
50. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2068 of 2024 dt.04-05-2026
28/28
for discussion on this judgment in the training programmes for
the concerned Judicial Officers.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/Shoaib
AFR/NAFR A.F.R
CAV DATE 24.04.2026
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.