XYZversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4630 of 2025
             Arising Out of PS. Case No.-728 Year-2023 Thana- MANER District- Patna
     ======================================================
     XXX, (Real name withheld)
                                                ... ... Appellant/s
                               Versus
1.    The State of Bihar
2.   XXX, (Real name withheld)

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Pramhansh Kumar Puri, Advocte
     For the State            :        Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha, APP
     Amicus Curiae            :        Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
                    ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 04-05-2026

                       The present appeal has been preferred by the

      appellant against the impugned order dated 08.10.2025, passed

      by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum-

      Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna in Special (Child) Case No.

      18 of 2025, arising out of Maner P.S. Case No. 728 of 2023,

      registered on 08.10.2023 against the Appellant and other five

      co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(D)

      and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the regular bail

      petition of the Appellant has been rejected by learned Court

      below holding that previously regular bail application of the

      appellant was rejected and revision petition filed against

      rejection order has been dismissed. He further submits that

      during trial, the victim has been examined who has not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4630 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
                                             2/5




         identified the appellant, whereas as per the F.I.R., the appellant

         was one of the accused arrested on the place of occurrence.

                          2. The said F.I.R. was lodged on the fardbeyan of

         the victim herself. As per the fardbeyan, the appellant and other

         five co-accused committed gang rape upon the victim.

                          3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted

         against the Appellant and other co-accused. By the order dated

         31.01.2024, the appellant was found to be 16 years, 10 months

         and 18 days old by Juvenile Justice Board, Patna. After

         assessment of age and maturity of the appellant under Section

         15 of the J.J. Act, the case was sent to Children Court for his

         trial as adult and thereafter, vide order dated 08.10.2025, regular

         bail application of the appellant has been dismissed.

                          4. I heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

         APP for the State and Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned

         Amicus Curiae.

                          5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

         the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

         case. He further submits that there is joint trial of the appellant

         and co-accused, who is also juvenile, is going on before the

         Children Court and during trial, the victim has clearly stated that

         the appellant and the other co-accused were not involved in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4630 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
                                             3/5




         offecne committed against her. They were not even present in

         the place of occurrence and she has seen the appellant and other

         co-accused for the first time in the Court. Prosecution case

         against the appellant does not stand. In such situation, there is

         no question of detaining the appellant either in Observation

         Home or any other institutions.

                          6. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

         opposes the prayer of the appellant for bail submitting that the

         alleged offence is very serious in nature because the appellant

         and other co-accused have allegedly committed gang rape and

         prior to examination of the victim during the trial, there was

         strong prosecution case against the appellant because the

         appellant was arrested on the place of occurrence.

                          7. Learned Amicus Curiae submits regarding the

         law governing release of juvenile in conflict with law on bail

         under J.J. Act is Section 12 which deals with release of juvenile

         in conflict with law on bail and as per Section 12 of J.J. Act,

         denial of bail is exception. He also submits that even application

         of Section 12 of J.J. Act, presupposes prosecution case against

         the accused or appellant, but at this stage, when the victim has

         been already examined during the trial, she has clearly given

         clean chit to the appellant and the prosecution case against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4630 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
                                             4/5




         appellant does not stand. In such situation, denial of bail of the

         appellant would be great miscarriage of justice because

         reformation of the juvenile in conflict with law, presupposes the

         commission of offence by the appellant, but in view of the

         evidence of the victim during trial, the appellant appears to be

         innocent and in such situation, denial of bail to the appellant

         would be grave injustice to the people.

                          8. I considered the submissions advanced by both

         the parties and learned Amicus Curiae.

                          9. I agree with learned Amicus Curiae that the first

         and foremost requirement for detaining the juvenile in conflict

         with law in Observation Home or other institutions as provided

         under J.J. Act, presupposes prosecution case against the

         accused/appellant, if there is no evidence on record against the

         appellant. There is no question of depriving the appellant of his

         right to liberty, he would be entitled to get bail irrespective of

         Section 12 of J.J. Act, which provides bail as a rule and denial

         of bail is an exception in case of juvenile in conflict with law.

                          10. Hence, considering the fact that the alleged

         victim, who is star witness of the prosecution, has clearly

         deposed before the Children Court during the trial that the

         appellant was neither present on the place of occurrence, nor
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4630 of 2025 dt.04-05-2026
                                                          5/5




                      was he involved in the alleged offence. Hence, there is no

                      ground of denial of bail to the appellant.

                                       11. 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 as and when required or

                      directed.

                                       12. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the

                      Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.

                                       13. Assistance provided by learned Amicus Curiae

                      is highly appreciated. However, learned Amicus Curiae says that

                      he has assisted this Court pro bono and he is requesting not to

                      give direction for payment of any honorarium.


                                                                       (Jitendra Kumar, J.)

ravishankar/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          08.05.2026.
Transmission Date       08.05.2026.