Patna High Court
XXXversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, bail to a child in conflict with law is a rule and can be denied only on the three specific grounds, none of which were established; therefore the appellant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The appellant, a juvenile aged 15 years, 10 months, was charged under Section 64(1) of the BNS Act, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and several provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Children Court denied his regular bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, relying on the victim's statement. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated, that no material justified denial of bail, and that the lower court ignored the limited grounds for refusal under the proviso to Section 12. The High Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 12, which makes bail for a child in conflict with law a rule, denial permissible only on three specific grounds, and found none of those grounds proved. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directing the release of the appellant on bail with conditions and ordering welfare measures for his rehabilitation.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 to the bail application of the juvenile appellant.
- Whether the three grounds in the proviso to Section 12(1) – association with known criminals, exposure to moral/physical/psychological danger, or defeat of the ends of justice – are satisfied in the present case.
- Whether the nature or seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile can be a factor to deny bail.
- Whether the observation home detention ordered by the lower court was justified under the Act.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 64(1)
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 15(2), 3
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii)
Subjects
- juvenile justice
- bail
- Section 12
- child in conflict with law
- observation home
- best interest of child
- rehabilitation
- POCSO
- SC/ST Act
- BNS Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.735 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2025 Thana- ANDHRAMATH District- Madhubani
======================================================
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. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Usha Kumari 1, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2026
Introduction
The present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the impugned order dated 19.11.2025, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum- Special Judge,
Children Court, Madhubani in EN No. 1831 of 2025, arising out
Andharamath P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025, registered against the
Appellant and other two co-accused for the offences punishable
under Section 64(1) of BNS, Section 4/6 of POCSO Act and
Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act,
whereby learned Children Court has rejected the application of
the appellant for regular bail under Section 12 of J.J. Act
holding that victim is just 15 years, 10 months and 7 days old on
the date of occurrence and she has fully supported her case in
her statement under Section 183 BNSS.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
2/21
Factual Background
2. As per prosecution case, the appellant was found
in the room of the alleged victim in night by mother of the
alleged victim and in the morning, the appellant was taken out
from that room in the presence of the villagers and he refused to
marry the victim girl and even panchayati was held, but to no
avail and hence, there was some delay in filing of the F.I.R.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioner
was acquainted with the alleged victim. However, parents of the
victim wanted to get their daughter married with appellant.
Hence, this false case has been lodged against the appellant to
put pressure upon him to marry the victim girl. He further
submits that as per medico legal examination which is on
record, the alleged victim has refused to undergo for any
medical examination. Even the mother of the alleged victim did
not want to get her daughter medically examined in regard to
the alleged offence. He further submits that regular bail
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
3/21
application of the appellant has been rejected by learned Court
below on irrelevant consideration because the ground for
rejection of regular bail under Section 12 of J.J. Act are limited
and same grounds are not available in the present case. Only on
account of the prosecution case being supported by the alleged
victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS regular bail
application cannot be rejected.
5. He also submits that the Appellant is detained in
the Observation Home since 01.08.2025.
6. 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
7. However, learned APP for the State defends the
impugned order saying that there is no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
8. Before I consider the rival submission of the
parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which deals
with bail to the Juvenile. Section 12 of the Act reads as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
4/21
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,
such child shall be produced before the Board for modification
of the conditions of bail.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015,
it clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail
provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 or
any other law for time being in force. It further emerges that as
per Section 12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule and
refusal of the same is an exception and Juvenile can be denied
bail only on the following three grounds: (i) if there appears
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
5/21
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to
bring that person into association with any known criminal, or,
(ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological
danger, or, (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of
justice.
10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Juvenile in Conflict
with Law Vs. State of Rajasthan, as reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 5297 has also held that juvenile in conflict with law
has to be necessarily released on bail unless the proviso is
applicable and there must be clear finding regarding the
applicability of the proviso. The relevant part of judgment reads
as follows:
"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of
Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be
necessarily released on bail with or without surety or
placed under supervision of a probation officer or
under the care of any fit person unless proviso is
applicable.
7.We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the
JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially
the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ
Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of
the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could
not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law.
........................................................................................
9.Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded
a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the
juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for
last one year.
10.Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
6/21
appeal is accordingly allowed.
11.We direct that the juvenile in conflict with law shall
be released on bail without surety. However, the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board shall issue
appropriate directions to the jurisdictional Probation
Officer to keep the juvenile under supervision and to
submit periodical reports to the Board about the
conduct of the Juvenile."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In Re-Exploitation of Children in
Orphanages in the State of T.N. Vs. Union of Indian and
Ors. as reported in (2020) 14 SCC 327, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that bail to a juvenile can be denied only on
three grounds as provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The relevant part of the judgment reads as
follows:
"7. Sub-section (1) makes it absolutely clear that a
child alleged to be in conflict with law should be
released on bail with or without surety or placed under
the supervision of a probation officer or under the care
of any fit person. The only embargo created is that in
case the release of the child is likely to bring him into
association with known criminals or expose the child
to moral, physical or psychological danger or where
the release of the child would defeat the ends of
justice, then bail can be denied for reasons to be
recorded in writing. Even if bail is not granted, the
child cannot be kept in jail or police lock-up and has to
be kept in an observation home or place of safety."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. The High Court of Bombay in XYZ v. State
of Maharashtra, as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2790
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
7/21
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)
13. It also emerges that seriousness of the alleged
offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant
considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
Even the child who is 16 years or above 16 years of age and is
alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to
get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no
classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act,
2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section 12 is applicable to all
juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
8/21
nature. (Also refer to Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu Vs. State of
Bihar, 2019 (6) BLJ 2016).
14. Karnataka High Court in XXX (accused
before the J.J. Board) Vs. State and Others as reported in
MANU/KA/3957/2024 has also held that Section 12 of the J.J.
Act, 2015 is applicable even to a juvenile who is being tried as
adult by Children Court and bail to him can be denied only on
the grounds as provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"9. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the
time being in force, a child, who is produced before the
Board, shall be released on bail subject to proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is very
clear that even if the child is ordered to be tried as a
adult, as provided under Section 18(3) of the Act of
2015, for the purpose of his bail application, Section
12 of the Act of 2015 would be applicable and his bail
application cannot be considered under the provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure. As is evident from
Section 12 of the Act of 2015, the only embargo in not
releasing a child on bail is that there appears a
reasonable ground that his release is likely to bring him
into any association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or that release of such a person would defeat the ends
of justice. The three disentitlement categories
contemplated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act
of 2015, would not come in the way of the petitioner's
application being considered under Section 12 of the
Act of 2015 for the following reasons:-
(a) The nature of crime committed by the petitioner is
not likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger; (b) There is no such report
available on record which suggests that the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
9/21
likely to be exposed to moral, physical and
psychological danger; (c) The victim girl and her
parents do not apprehend any danger from the
petitioner and they have appeared before the Special
Court and stated that they have no objection for
enlarging the petitioner on bail."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Allahabad High Court in Radhika (Juvenile)
Vs. State of U.P., as reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4911
has also held that under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, nature
and character of the alleged crime is not a relevant consideration
and bail can be denied to a juvenile only on the grounds as
provided in the Proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The
relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"27.It is explicit from the plain reading of Section 12
of the Act that irrespective of nature and character of
the crime, if a ‘child’ brought by the police or appears
before the Board, such child shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or any other law enforced in time, “shall’ be
released on bail with or without surety under the
supervision of Probation Officer or under the care of
any fit person. The word “fit person’ is defined under
section 2(28) of the Act, means any person prepared to
owe responsibility of a child for a specific purpose and
after making due enquiry in this behalf, the Board may
give the custody of child in the hand of “fit person’.
Thus, it is clear that the child delinquent has got a right
to be released on bail with or without surety and the
gravity, nature and depth of the offence shall not come
into the way.
28. However, in the proviso of Section 12(1) of the
Act, there are three embargoes/riders; namely; (a) if
there appears reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into association
with any known criminal or; (b) expose that person as
moral, physical or psychological danger or; (c) the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
10/21
person's release would defeat the ends of justice, the
Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances lead to such a decision.
29. From the plain reading of the above proviso, it has
been clearly borne out that (1) the juvenile delinquent
has got unqualified right to seek bail irrespective of the
gravity, depth and seriousness of the offence; (2) his
bail could be denied strictly on the three grounds, as
mentioned under the proviso of Section 12 of the Act
by the Board”.
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Punjab and Haryana High Court has also
held in Vishvas vs. State of Punjab as reported in
MANU/PH/0067/2021 that under Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015,
the nature and gravity of the alleged offence is not relevant
while considering bail application to a juvenile. Bail can be
denied to a juvenile under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 only
on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act and there must be material on record in support of the
grounds. It has also held that ‘ends of justice being defeated’
has to be considered in the context of the welfare of the
juvenile. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"7. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12
of the J.J. Act, it appears that the intention of the
legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of
the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have
been committed by him, and bail can be declined only
in such cases where reasonable grounds are there for
believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile
into association of any known criminal or expose him
to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice. Meaning
thereby, as per aforesaid provision, a juvenile can be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
11/21
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
likely to bring the juvenile into association with any
known criminal;
b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral,
physical or psychological danger; and
c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
........................................................................................
..................................................
14. The third exception namely 'ends of justice being
defeated' has to be considered in the context of the
welfare of the juvenile, as has been held by the Delhi
High Court in Master Abhishek (Minor) Vs. State
(Delhi) MANU/DE/0445/2005 : 2005 VI AD Delhi 18.
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
12/21
High Court in Gau v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 as reported in
SCC OnLine Raj 2526. The relevant part of the judgment reads
as follows :
"7.The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015
conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to
the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the
offence, alleged to have been committed by him and
bail can be denied only in the case where there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or that his release would defeat
ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Here, it would be also pertinent to point out that
the ends of justice as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act is drastically different to one as used in the context of
penal statutes. The ends of justice in the context of any Act is
ascertained on the basis of the purpose and object of that Act
and the objective of the J.J. Act is to reform and rehabilitate the
juveniles and not to punish them, as emerges from the preamble
to the J.J. Act, which reads as follows:
“An Act to consolidate and amend the law
relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict
with law and children in need of care and protection by
catering to their basic needs through proper care,
protection, development, treatment, social reintegration,
by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication
and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and
for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and
institutions and bodies established, hereinunder and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
13/21
19. The purpose and object of the J.J. Act
manifests in Section 3 also of the J.J. Act, providing for general
principles to be followed in the administration of the Act.
Section 3 of the Act reads as follows:
“3. General principles to be followed in administration
of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments,
the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—
………………………………………………………...
(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the
child shall be based on the primary consideration that they
are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to
develop full potential.
……………………………………………………………
(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to
ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any
harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care
and protection system, and thereafter.
(vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised
including those of family and community, for promoting
the well-being, facilitating development of identity and
providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to
reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for
intervention under this Act.
(viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial
or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes
pertaining to a child.”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. High Court of Uttaranchal in X (Juvenile in
conflict with law) Vs. State of Uttarakhand, as reported in
2025 SCC OnLine Utt 157 has also held that the Juvenile
Justice Act is child friendly and all decisions regarding the child
under the Act should be based on primary consideration of the
best interest of the child. It has been also held that any juvenile
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
14/21
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
of primary responsibility. According to it, “the primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the
child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive
or foster parents, as the case may be”.
........................................................................................
12.Nothing has been shown that if released the CIL
would come into contact with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
21. The J.J. Act is based on the belief that children are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
15/21
the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with
law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and
rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish
its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with
law would be self-destructive for the society.
22. As such, if the keeping of the child in custody
is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection,
only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat
the ends of justice. (Also refer to Abhishek Vs. State, 205
CriLJ (NOC) 115 (Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi, 2006 CriLJ 4759).
23. It also emerges from Section 3 of the Act that
Reformatory or Observation Home is only one of the measures
contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating
the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in
conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the
best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the
Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of
the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or
foster parents of the child and it has been contemplated that
every child in conflict with law has right to be reunited with his
family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
16/21
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)
24. Hence, under the J.J. Act, 2015, a child in
conflict with law is not expected to be treated as an adult
offender. J.J. Boards/Courts are required to adopt fundamentally
a different approach while dealing with juveniles in conflict
with law. They are expected to deal with such juveniles with all
sensibility and responsibility, keeping in mind the purpose and
object of the J.J. Act to reform and rehabilitate the child, so as to
make him a responsible and productive member of the society.
The society would get ruined if such children are dealt with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
17/21
punitive approach.
25. Similar view has been taken by this Court in
Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar Case (supra), Nitish
Kumar Case (supra), Chandan Kumar Paswan Case (supra),
Rakesh Rai Case (supra) and Avnish Kumar case (supra).
Summary of the legal Provisions
26. Hence, it is clearly found that notwithstanding
anything contained in the code of criminal procedure or any
other law for time being in force, bail to a juvenile in conflict
with law is governed by Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
26(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally
applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any
discrimination of any nature. Even a juvenile, aged between 16
to 18 years and being accused of heinous offence and being tried
by Children Court, is entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the
J.J. Act.
26(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged
offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12
of the J.J. Act.
26(3). “The ends of justice” as used in the proviso
to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act is drastically different to one as
used in general criminal jurisprudence. If the detention of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
18/21
juvenile at Observation Home or other institutions as
contemplated under the J.J. Act is helpful in protection,
development and rehabilitation of the juvenile, only then it can
be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
26(4). The family of the child in conflict with law
is the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of
the J.J.Act. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law
is the last resort and every child in conflict with law has right to
be reunited with his family at the earliest.
26(5). Under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail
to a juvenile is a rule and the refusal of the same is an exception
and it can be denied only on the grounds as provided in the
proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
26(6). The denial of bail must be reasoned and the
grounds of denial must be based on relevant facts and
circumstances, as emerging from the material on record. Social
Investigation Report is one of the most important such material.
Perusal of such report is mandatory as per Section 15 (2) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The Board/Court is required to know not only
about the offence committed by the juvenile but even about the
socio-economic conditions/circumstances under which the
offence was committed, so that, appropriate order in regard to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
19/21
the juvenile in conflict with law could be passed with intent to
reform and rehabilitate the juvenile and reintegrate him with the
mainstream of the society.
26(7). All resources have to be mobilised including
those of the family and the community for reforming and
rehabilitating the juvenile in conflict with law to make him
productive member of the society. (Refer to Section 3 (vii) of
the J.J. Act, 2015.)
Present Case
27. It goes without saying that nature of the alleged
offence or material in support of the same is not a ground of
rejection of regular bail application of the juvenile-appellant.
28. As per legal requirement, the Court below has
to find out that release of the appellant on bail may bring him
into association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical, psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, but none of the grounds as provided in
Section 12 of J.J. Act to refuse to grant of bail to the appellant is
available.
29. In para-6 of the impugned order, learned Court
below has discussed the Social Investigation Report, as per
which, the appellant belongs to a poor family living in a small
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
20/21
house. He has also no criminal antecedent and he has studied up
to Class-VIII and his conduct is satisfactory as per co-villagers
and he has never been found in any ante-social activities in the
past.
30. As per further finding of the Court below on the
basis of the SIR, there was love affair between the appellant and
the alleged victim and they were in constant touch through
mobile, but both of them belonged to different castes. Hence,
this criminal case has been lodged by the family of the alleged
victim against the appellant.
31. Hence, I find that no ground is made out for
refusal of the bail to the appellant.
32. Hence, release of the appellant with certain
conditions would be in the best interest of the Appellant and it
would serve the ends of justice.
33. Accordingly, the impugned order is not
sustainable. Hence, 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 the developmental
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.735 of 2026 dt.07-07-2026
21/21
needs of the appellant and the appellant would attend the Court
as and when required or directed.
34. In view of the fact that petitioner belongs to
very poor family, the District Magistrate, Madhubani is directed
to find out a way to help the Appellant and his family members
under welfare schemes of Government, so that the appellant
may get rehabilitated and reintegrated with mainstream of the
society. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Madhubani is also directed to collaborate with the District
Magistrate in taking welfare measures in support of the
appellant and his family.
35. Let a copy of this order be also sent to learned
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Madhubani and
District Magistrate, Madhubani for their information and
needful.
36. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the
Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
ravishankar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date 08.07.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.