Patna High Court

Raja Ram @ Raja Ram Kumar @ Amarjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: JITENDRA KUMAR

Holding

Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, bail to a juvenile must be granted unless the specific proviso grounds are established, which were not, so the appeal is allowed and bail granted.

Summary

The appellant, a 17‑year‑old juvenile, was charged under Sections 366(A) and 302 IPC read with Section 34, and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act for kidnapping and murdering a girl. The Children Court denied his regular bail, relying on police statements and the post‑mortem report. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined whether the denial complied with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for a child unless the specific proviso grounds—association with known criminals, exposure to danger, or defeat of the ends of justice—are proved. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence, the juvenile’s age, or lack of criminal antecedents do not constitute grounds for denial, and no material on record satisfied any proviso condition. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, bail was granted on a Rs 10,000 bond with supervisory conditions, and welfare directions were issued for the appellant’s family.

Issues considered

Whether the Children Court correctly applied Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, in denying bail to the juvenile appellant.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence or the appellant’s age can be a ground to refuse bail under the Act.
Whether any of the proviso grounds to deny bail (association with known criminals, exposure to moral/physical/psychological danger, or defeat of the ends of justice) are satisfied in the present case.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161
Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 366A
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 15(2), 3
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8

Subjects

juvenile justice
bail
Section 12
proviso
POCSO
kidnapping
murder
Children Court
rehabilitation
best interest of child

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4474 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-631 Year-2023 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
======================================================
XXX (Real name withheld)

... ... Appellant/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. YYY (Real name withheld)

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Dhar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
For Resp. No. 2 : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 08-05-2026

Learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for

the State are present. However, nobody is present on behalf of

Respondent No. 2, despite valid service of notice.

2. LCR is already received.

3. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned APP for the State.

4. The present appeal has been preferred by the

appellant against the impugned order dated 19.09.2025, passed

by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special

Judge NDPS Act, and P.O. of Children Court, Begusarai in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
2/23

J.J.C.P. No. 08 of 2025, arising out of Barauni P.S. Case No. 631

of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections

366(A) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, whereby regular bail

application of the appellant has been rejected.

Factual Background

5. Barauni P.S. Case No. 631 of 2023 was registered

on the written report of mother of the alleged victim alleging

that her daughter has been kidnapped by the appellant with

intent to marry her.

6. In course of investigation, dead body of the victim

was recovered and charge-sheet has been submitted against the

appellant and his parents before learned POCSO Court for

offence punishable under Section 366(A) and Section 302, read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8 and

12 of POCSO Act and on plea of juvenility taken by the

appellant, the matter was sent to Juvenile Justice Board,

Begusarai, where as per the assessment of age under Section 94

of the J.J. Act, the age of the appellant was found to be 17 years,

8 months and 21 days and after preliminary assessment under

Section 15 of J.J. Act, he was found to be mature enough to

understand the nature and consequence of the alleged offence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
3/23

and hence, the case was sent to learned Children Court for trial

of the appellant as an adult.

7. During trial, charge has been framed, but no

witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution till

date.

8. By the impugned order, learned Children Court has

rejected the regular bail application of the appellant holding that

all the witnesses examined by the police under Section 161

Cr.PC have supported the prosecution case and as per post-

mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia consequent to

ante-mortem hanging.

Submissions on behalf of the Parties

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

case. He further submits that none of the grounds is sustainable

as per law.

10. He further submits that it is Section 12 of the J.J.

Act which is applicable in regard to grant of bail to the appellant

and the grounds for rejection of bail have been provided under

the proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act and only on limited

grounds, as provided in the proviso to Section 12 of J.J. Act,

2015, bail application of the appellant could be rejected. But
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
4/23

none of the grounds has been considered, nor any ground has

been made out as per proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act to

deny the bail to the appellant. The bail application of the

appellant has been erroneously rejected on irrelevant grounds.

11. He further submits that the nature of the alleged

offence or the evidence in support of the prosecution case is not

a ground for rejection of regular bail application of a juvenile-

appellant. No ground as per the proviso to Section 12 of the J.J.

Act has been made out to reject the regular bail application of

the appellant.

12. He further submits that as per Social Investigation

Report, neither the appellant, nor his family members have any

criminal antecedents, nor is any report which shows that family

environment is not conducive for proper development and

rehabilitation of the appellant, though the appellant belongs to a

poor family and his parents are illiterate and his father works as

a laborer.

13. He further submits that the juvenile-appellant is in

custody since 19.02.2025.

14. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that there

is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
5/23

Children Court has rightly rejected the regular bail application

of the appellant, because the alleged offence is very serious in

nature and is supported by the material on record.

Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.

15. 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
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,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
6/23

such child shall be produced before the Board for modification
of the conditions of bail.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

16. 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.

17. 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:

"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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
7/23

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)

18. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
8/23

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)

19. 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)

20. It also emerges that seriousness of the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
9/23

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).

21. 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
12 of the Act of 2015 would be applicable and his bail
application cannot be considered under the provisions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
10/23

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)

22. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
11/23

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)
23. 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

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’
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
12/23

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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
13/23

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)

24. 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)
25. 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

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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
14/23

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)

26. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
15/23

pertaining to a child.”
(Emphasis supplied)

27. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
16/23

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)

28. 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.

29. 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).

30. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
17/23

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)

31. 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
18/23

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.

32. 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

33. 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.

33(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable

to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination

of any nature. Even a juvenile, aged between 16 to 18 years and

being accused of heinous offence and being tried by Children

Court, is entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
19/23

33(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged

offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12

of the J.J. Act.

33(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.

33(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.

33(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.

33(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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
20/23

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.

33(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

34. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the

appellant is facing charge under Section 366(A) and Section 302

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8

and 12 of POCSO Act and charge has been already framed,

though the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

35. I further find that learned Children Court has

rejected the regular bail application of the appellant on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
21/23

ground of statement of the witnesses examined under Section

161 Cr.PC in support of the prosecution witnesses and the cause

of death as provided in the post-mortem report as asphyxia

consequent to ante-mortem hanging.

36. No doubt the alleged offence is obnoxious and

heinous in nature and no one can justify the offence allegedly

committed. However, the serious nature of the alleged offence

or material in support of the prosecution case is not a relevant

consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of

the J.J. Act. Hence, the ground given by learned Children Court

to reject the regular bail application of the appellant is not

legally sustainable.

37. To reject the regular bail application of the

appellant, learned Children Court must have made out the

grounds as provided under proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act.

But after scrutiny of the material on record, I find that none of

the grounds is made out to deny the bail to the appellant.

38. On the other hand, I find that neither the appellant,

nor his parents/family members have any criminal antecedents,

nor they are involved in any criminal activities. Hence, it cannot

be held that release of the appellant on bail would not be in his

best interest.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
22/23

39. 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.

40. As the appellant and his family are suffering from

poverty, learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

Begusarai 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, Begusarai is

also directed to co-operate and collaborate with learned

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Begusarai 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.

41. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4474 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
23/23

Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.

42. Let a copy of this order be also sent to learned

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Begusarai and

District Magistrate, Begusarai for their information and needful.

(Jitendra Kumar, J)
shoaib/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09-05-2026
Transmission Date 09-05-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.