Patna High Court

Sumit GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: JITENDRA KUMAR

Holding

A juvenile in conflict with law must be released on bail unless the specific proviso conditions of Section 12(1) of the JJ Act are demonstrably satisfied, which they were not in this case.

Summary

The appellant, a minor alleged to have participated in the preparation and sale of charas and smack at the Indo‑Nepal border, was denied regular bail by the Sessions Court on the ground that his release might associate him with criminals and endanger him. The appellant contended that he had no criminal antecedent, no confessional statement, and that the Social Investigation Report showed he was a law‑abiding student helping his family. The High Court examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for a child in conflict with law unless the specific proviso grounds are satisfied. Relying on several Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court held that none of the proviso conditions – association with known criminals, exposure to danger, or defeat of the ends of justice – were proved. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with supervisory conditions and directed welfare assistance for the minor. The appeal was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of bail to a juvenile under the NDPS charges violates Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Whether the proviso to Section 12(1) – risk of association with criminals, exposure to danger, or defeat of the ends of justice – is applicable in the present facts.
Whether the lower court’s order was reasoned in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 15(2), 3
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(B)(2)(c), 22(c), 24, 29, 8(c)

Subjects

juvenile bail
Section 12 JJ Act
NDPS Act
child in conflict with law
proviso
rehabilitation
observation home
best interest of child

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.46 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2024 Thana- Haraiya District- East Champaran
======================================================
XXX (Real name withheld)

... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukteshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-05-2026

Introduction

The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant

against the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by learned

District and Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at

Motihari in Children Trial No. 13 of 2025 arising out of Haraiya

P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable

under Section 8(c), 20(B)(2)(c), 22(c), 24 and 29 of the N.D.P.S.

Act, whereby learned Court below has rejected the regular bail

application of the Appellant holding as follows:

“Heard and perused the record. From the perusal
of the record, it appears that petitioner is named in F.I.R.
the he was arrested by the police from the house of prime
accused Hasnain Thakur. They allegation against the
petitioner that he along with co-accused persons were
selling 'charas' and 'smack' at Indo-Nepal border. Huge
quantity of 'charas' and 'smack' has been recovered from
the possession of the co-accused Hasnain Thakur. It has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
2/22

been alleged that the petitioner was one of their associates.
Under these circumstances in my considered opinion his
release is likely to bring him in bad association with the
criminals and expose him to moral and psychological
danger and also his release will defeat to ends of justice.
Thus, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. Hence, the
prayer of bail of the CICL is hereby rejected.”
Factual Background

2. The said Haraiya P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025 has been

registered on the self statement of the S.I. Anjan Kumar, S.H.O.,

Haraiya Police Station, East Champaran at Motihari, as per

which, the police got secret information that the co-accused,

Md. Nayim Miya @ Komarudding along with his wife, daughter

and son-in-law has brought charas and smack and kept it in his

house and as per further information, his wife, daughter, son-in-

law and other relatives are calling some boys to prepare pouch

of the contraband to sell it to the customers on the Indo-Nepal

border area in the evening.

3. Consequently, raiding team was prepared and police

reached the house of Md. Nayim Miya @ Komaruddin and

recovered 208 gram smack and 1092 gram charas. They also

found seven boys sitting in the house of Md. Nayim Miya.

However, two ladies were successful to flee away from the

house of the co-accused, Hasnain Thakur, who was apprehended

at the place of recovery of the contraband. As per the statement

of the boys apprehended, they were getting pouch from Md.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
3/22

Nayim Miya and his other family members to sell it to the

customers on the Indo-Nepal Border to get daily wage.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

case. He further submits that the Appellant has not given any

confessional statement before the police that he sells pouches of

contraband provided by the co-accused, nor is there any specific

case of the prosecution that the Appellant himself has given

such confessional statement. Even otherwise, any confessional

statement before the police has no evidentiary value. Even as

per the Social Investigation Report, the Appellant has no

criminal antecedent, nor any of his family members are involved

in any criminal activities. As a matter of fact, the Probation

Officer has reported that his parents run a vegetable shop and

the Appellant also works and helps his family and there is

nothing in the Social Investigation Report that he is in

association with any criminal or involved in any criminal

activities. Hence, learned Court below has erroneously rejected

the regular bail application of the Appellant, holding that release

of the Appellant on bail would bring him in association with

criminals and expose him to moral and psychological danger.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
4/22

5. The Petitioner is in judicial custody since
30.09.2024.
Submissions on behalf of the State
6. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

opposes the prayer of the appellant for bail submitting that there

is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and learned

Children Court has rightly rejected the regular bail application

of the appellant, because the alleged offence is serious in nature.

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

7. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
5/22

of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home ¹[or a place of safety, as the
case may be,] in such manner as may be prescribed until the
person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-
section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to
an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be,
for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding
the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the
conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the Board for modification
of the conditions of bail.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

8. 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.

9. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
6/22

and there must be clear finding regarding the applicability of the

proviso. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:

"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of
Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be
necessarily released on bail with or without surety or
placed under supervision of a probation officer or
under the care of any fit person unless proviso is
applicable.
7.We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the
JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially
the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ
Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of
the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could
not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law.
........................................................................................
9.Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded
a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the
juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for
last one year.
10.Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.
11.We direct that the juvenile in conflict with law shall
be released on bail without surety. However, the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board shall issue
appropriate directions to the jurisdictional Probation
Officer to keep the juvenile under supervision and to
submit periodical reports to the Board about the
conduct of the Juvenile."
(Emphasis supplied)

10. 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
7/22

The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:

"7. Sub-section (1) makes it absolutely clear that a
child alleged to be in conflict with law should be
released on bail with or without surety or placed under
the supervision of a probation officer or under the care
of any fit person. The only embargo created is that in
case the release of the child is likely to bring him into
association with known criminals or expose the child
to moral, physical or psychological danger or where
the release of the child would defeat the ends of
justice, then bail can be denied for reasons to be
recorded in writing. Even if bail is not granted, the
child cannot be kept in jail or police lock-up and has to
be kept in an observation home or place of safety."

(Emphasis supplied)

11. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
8/22

impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed.
Hence following order:"
(Emphasis supplied)

12. 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).

13. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
9/22

Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is very
clear that even if the child is ordered to be tried as a
adult, as provided under Section 18(3) of the Act of
2015, for the purpose of his bail application, Section
12 of the Act of 2015 would be applicable and his bail
application cannot be considered under the provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure. As is evident from
Section 12 of the Act of 2015, the only embargo in not
releasing a child on bail is that there appears a
reasonable ground that his release is likely to bring him
into any association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or that release of such a person would defeat the ends
of justice. The three disentitlement categories
contemplated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act
of 2015, would not come in the way of the petitioner's
application being considered under Section 12 of the
Act of 2015 for the following reasons:-

(a) The nature of crime committed by the petitioner is
not likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger; (b) There is no such report
available on record which suggests that the petitioner is
likely to be exposed to moral, physical and
psychological danger; (c) The victim girl and her
parents do not apprehend any danger from the
petitioner and they have appeared before the Special
Court and stated that they have no objection for
enlarging the petitioner on bail."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. 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:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
10/22

"27.It is explicit from the plain reading of Section 12
of the Act that irrespective of nature and character of
the crime, if a ‘child’ brought by the police or appears
before the Board, such child shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or any other law enforced in time, “shall’ be
released on bail with or without surety under the
supervision of Probation Officer or under the care of
any fit person. The word “fit person’ is defined under
section 2(28) of the Act, means any person prepared to
owe responsibility of a child for a specific purpose and
after making due enquiry in this behalf, the Board may
give the custody of child in the hand of “fit person’.
Thus, it is clear that the child delinquent has got a right
to be released on bail with or without surety and the
gravity, nature and depth of the offence shall not come
into the way.
28. However, in the proviso of Section 12(1) of the
Act, there are three embargoes/riders; namely; (a) if
there appears reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into association
with any known criminal or; (b) expose that person as
moral, physical or psychological danger or; (c) the
person's release would defeat the ends of justice, the
Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances lead to such a decision.
29. From the plain reading of the above proviso, it has
been clearly borne out that (1) the juvenile delinquent
has got unqualified right to seek bail irrespective of the
gravity, depth and seriousness of the offence; (2) his
bail could be denied strictly on the three grounds, as
mentioned under the proviso of Section 12 of the Act
by the Board”.
(Emphasis supplied)

15. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
11/22

on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the

J.J. Act and there must be material on record in support of the

grounds. It has also held that ‘ends of justice being defeated’

has to be considered in the context of the welfare of the

juvenile. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:

"7. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12
of the J.J. Act, it appears that the intention of the
legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of
the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have
been committed by him, and bail can be declined only
in such cases where reasonable grounds are there for
believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile
into association of any known criminal or expose him
to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice. Meaning
thereby, as per aforesaid provision, a juvenile can be
denied the concession of bail, if any of the three
contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the J.J.
Act is available. Similar view was observed in cases
Manoj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC 995,
Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/1042/2005
: 2006(1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
MANU/RH/0549/2005 : 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 530
and Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v. State of
Rajasthan MANU/RH/1038/2005 : 2005(4) Crimes
649.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also
not pointed out any material available on record to
show that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the petitioner is likely to come into the association
of any known criminal if released on bail, or his
release will expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger. The order passed is mechanical
and without adhering to the provisions of Section 12(1)
of the J.J. Act, which specifies that 'the Board shall
record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances that led to such a decision.'
………………………………………………………...
12. The Supreme Court and various High Courts, time
and again have reiterated the well settled position of
law, that gravity of offence is immaterial in deciding
the bail application. Bail of a child in conflict with law
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
12/22

cannot be rejected in a routine manner and if the bail is
declined, a reasoned order has to be given by the
Board. A juvenile has to be released on bail
mandatorily unless and until the exceptions carved out
in proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015 itself
are made out. The exceptions are noted being:-
a) a reasonable ground for believing that the release is
likely to bring the juvenile into association with any
known criminal;
b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral,
physical or psychological danger; and
c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
........................................................................................
..................................................
14. The third exception namely 'ends of justice being
defeated' has to be considered in the context of the
welfare of the juvenile, as has been held by the Delhi
High Court in Master Abhishek (Minor) Vs. State
(Delhi) MANU/DE/0445/2005 : 2005 VI AD Delhi 18.
(Emphasis supplied)

16. 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)
17. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
13/22

penal statutes. The ends of justice in the context of any Act is

ascertained on the basis of the purpose and object of that Act

and the objective of the J.J. Act is to reform and rehabilitate the

juveniles and not to punish them, as emerges from the preamble

to the J.J. Act, which reads as follows:

“An Act to consolidate and amend the law
relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict
with law and children in need of care and protection by
catering to their basic needs through proper care,
protection, development, treatment, social reintegration,
by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication
and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and
for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and
institutions and bodies established, hereinunder and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

18. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
14/22

including those of family and community, for promoting
the well-being, facilitating development of identity and
providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to
reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for
intervention under this Act.
(viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial
or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes
pertaining to a child.”

(Emphasis supplied)

19. 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
15/22

9. The JJ Act is, in fact, child friendly. The central
theme is that the child interest is supreme. Section 3 of
the JJ Act incorporates the general principles to be
followed in the administration of the Act. According to
which, “all decisions regarding the child shall be based
on the primary consideration that they are in the best
interest of the child and to help the child to develop
full potential. In fact, Section 3 sub section (v) speaks
of primary responsibility. According to it, “the primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the
child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive
or foster parents, as the case may be”.
........................................................................................
12.Nothing has been shown that if released the CIL
would come into contact with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)

20. 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.

21. 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).

22. It also emerges from Section 3 of the Act that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
16/22

Reformatory or Observation Home is only one of the measures

contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating

the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in

conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the

best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the

Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of

the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or

foster parents of the child and it has been contemplated that

every child in conflict with law has right to be reunited with his

family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict

with law has been contemplated as the last resort. Such

principles manifest in clauses v, xii and xiii of Section 3 of the

Act which read as follows:

“3. General principles to be followed in administration
of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments,
the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—
………………………………………………………...
(v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child
shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster
parents, as the case may be.
………………………………………………………….
(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last
resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step
of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child
in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be re-
united with his family at the earliest and to be restored to
the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was
in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless
such restoration and repatriation is not in his best
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
17/22

interest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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.

25(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable to

all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
18/22

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.

25(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged offence is

not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12 of the J.J.

Act.

25(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.

25(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.

25(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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
19/22

25(6). The denial of bail must be reasoned and the

grounds of denial must be based on relevant facts and

circumstances, as emerging from the material on record. Social

Investigation Report is one of the most important such material.

Perusal of such report is mandatory as per Section 15 (2) of the

J.J. Act, 2015. The Board/Court is required to know not only

about the offence committed by the juvenile but even about the

socio-economic conditions/circumstances under which the

offence was committed, so that, appropriate order in regard to

the juvenile in conflict with law could be passed with intent to

reform and rehabilitate the juvenile and reintegrate him with the

mainstream of the society.

25(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

26. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the Appellant

is one of the boys who were found to be in the house of the co-

accused to prepare pouch of contraband and selling the same on

the Indo-Nepal border to the customers. However, I further find
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
20/22

that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the

Appellant by the police, and as per the Social Investigation

Report, there is no criminal antecedent of the Appellant and he

is not involved in any criminal activities, nor he is in association

with any criminals. On the contrary, the Probation Officer has

reported that he works and helps parents in maintaining his

family.

27. 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.

28. Hence, release of the appellant with certain

conditions and some positive measures would be in the best

interest of the Appellant.

29. Hence, the impugned order passed by learned Court

below is not sustainable in the eye of law and it is liable to be

set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
21/22

30. 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.

31. As the appellant and his family are suffering from

poverty, learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

East Champaran at Motihari 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, East Champaran at Motihari 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.

32. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court

concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.46 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
22/22

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

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Motihari and

District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari for their

information and needful.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 14.05.2026
Transmission Date 14.05.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.