Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar @ GajjuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The High Court denied anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to seek age assessment before the Juvenile Justice Board and to be dealt with under the JJ Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar (also known as Gajju), was alleged to have participated in an assault that resulted in the death of the informant's son and injuries to two others. He claimed to be a 15‑year‑old minor studying in class IX, with a clean antecedent, and sought anticipatory bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was involved in a homicide. The trial court directed the petitioner to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board for age verification and appropriate procedure. The Patna High Court, after considering the submissions, rejected the anticipatory bail petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Juvenile Justice Board for assessment under the JJ Act.
Issues considered
- Whether a minor in conflict with law is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 103(1), 109 and 3(5) of the BNS preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 109, 3(5)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 3(i), 3(ii), 3(iii), 3(iv), 3(v), 3(vi), 3(vii)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- minor in conflict with law
- Juvenile Justice Act
- age assessment
- criminal assault
- homicide
- bail rejection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34073 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna
======================================================
Deepak Kumar @ Gajju S/o- Ranjeet Thakur R/O, Sader Gali, Banwari Tola,
Near Kath ki Devi, Patna City, District- Patna 800008.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aftab Alam Siddiqui, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Chowk P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026, for allegedly
having committed offence under Sections 103(1), 109 and 3(5)
of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been
lodged on the basis of written report submitted by the informant
to the effect that he received information on 12.01.2026 that his
son and his two friends have been injured with chaapar and are
being taken to Guru Govind Singh Hospital, Patna City for
treatment. On receiving the said information, the informant went
to the hospital, where he found his son Bittu Kumar lying dead
on the stretcher with injury mark on his body. When he enquired
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34073 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/4
from his relatives, who were present there, he came to know that
the son of his brother-in-law, namely, Rakesh Kumar has also
received injury on his shoulder and is undergoing treatment.
Ankit Kumar, who is the friend of his son, has also been beaten
with chhapar in his back and he is undergoing treatment at a
local doctor. Upon enquiry from the injured Rakesh Kumar, the
informant came to know that Daksh Kumar, Deep Kumar @
Gajju (petitioner), Aditya Keshri and Golden Rai, along with 3-
4 unknown boys attacked the son of the informant and his
friends with knife, due to dispute near Bhagat Singh Chowk,
opposite Titan Watch Shop, due to which, the son of the
informant succumbed to his injuries and other two persons
received injuries for which, they are being treated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a minor studying in class-IX and as per his
Aadhar Card and school Identity Card, he is of 15 years of age.
He further submits that the petitioner is a person having clean
antecedent and as per the provisions contained in Section 3(i) to
(vii) under General Principle of Care and Protection of Children
of Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The occurrence took place due to sudden provocation and the
father of petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34073 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/4
submits that the petitioner is a minor in conflict with law and
deserves anticipatory bail in view of the order passed by a
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.09.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43991 of 2024 R/W welfare provisions
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, which clearly states the child in conflict with law, since
minor cannot be deprived off his Fundamental Right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of life and liberty. The petitioner
has got clean antecedent.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner along with other co-accused has killed the son of the
informant and has also injured two of his friends.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the record, it appears that the petitioner and his other
friends assaulted the son of the informant and two others with
Chhapar and others, due to which the son of the informant
suffered injuries and succumbed to the same on way to hospital.
The learned Court of District and Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Patna City vide his order dated 02.04.2026, directed the
petitioner to appear with his father before the Juvenile Justice
Board and to pray for protection from there. Considering the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34073 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/4
facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail petition
of the petitioner is rejected with a liberty to the petitioner to
move before the Juvenile Justice Board, where the age of the
petitioner would be assessed and if it is found that the petitioner
is a minor, the procedure prescribed under law in the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 should be
followed.
7. With the aforementioned observation, the bail
petition of the petitioner is rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.