Patna High Court
Laxman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Bail must be granted to a child in conflict with law unless the specific grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are established.
Summary
The petitioners, a 17-year‑old child in conflict with law (CICL), were charged under IPC sections 376, 341, 323, 504/34 and POCSO sections 4 and 6 for allegedly inducing a 12‑year‑old girl into a sexual relationship and causing pregnancy. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) denied bail, and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld that denial. The CICL filed a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, contending that bail cannot be refused unless the specific grounds in Section 12 of the Act are satisfied. The High Court examined the statutory provisions, emphasizing the child‑friendly nature of the Act, the principle of best interest of the child, and the lack of any material showing danger to the CICL or the victim if bail were granted. Finding no grounds under Section 12, the Court set aside both the JJB and appellate orders and directed the release of the CICL on bail with conditions, allowing the revision petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be denied to a child in conflict with law absent the specific grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences can be a ground to refuse bail to a CICL.
- Whether the release of the CICL would defeat the ends of justice or expose him to criminal elements or danger.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 341, 376, 504/34
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 102, 12, 3(iv), 3(xii), 3(xiii), 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- child in conflict with law
- Juvenile Justice Act
- best interest of the child
- POCSO
- sexual assault
- revision
- identity protection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1039 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
X1
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ramawati Devi, W/o Late Damodar Singh, Resident of Village - Bodhan
Mahto Tola, Police Station - Muffasil, District - Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surya Narayan Roy
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2.
02. From perusal of record, it transpires that in
the revision petition, the identity details of the petitioner/child in
conflict with law (for brevity “CICL”) is being disclosed, which
is against the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(for short ‘the Act of 2015’), which mandates protection of
disclosure of identity of the CICL. Therefore, the identity of the
CICL is being referred to in the cause title as X1.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
2/8
03. Registry while uploading the order on the
website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar
manner.
04. The instant criminal revision application has
been preferred by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Act of
2015 challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2025 passed in Cr.
Appeal No.04 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
I, Munger, whereby the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in J.J.B. Case No. 21 of 2025
arising out of Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 has
been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been
dismissed.
05. Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024
has been registered on the written report of the informant
Ramawati Devi under Sections 376, 341, 323, 504/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act against
the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he
induced the minor granddaughter of the informant into
establishing physical relationship with her giving her allurement
of marriage and made her pregnant. Later on, the petitioner
refused to marry her.
06. The petitioner was apprehended on
11.06.2024 and learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
3/8
determined the age of the petitioner to be 17 years 9 months 23
days on the date of occurrence and was declared juvenile/child
in conflict with law (CICL). The CICL filed a petition for grant
of bail on 13.05.2025 but vide order dated 14.05.2025 the
learned Juvenile Justice Board rejected the prayer for bail made
on behalf of CICL.
07. Against the rejection order passed by learned
Juvenile Justice Board in J.J.B. No. 21 of 2025, the CICL
approached the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Munger in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2025, but his criminal
appeal was also rejected vide judgment dated 04.07.2025.
08. Being aggrieved by the order of learned
appellate court, the CICL has filed the present revision petition
seeking bail.
09. Learned counsel for the petitioner (CICL)
submits that the orders passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board
as well as learned appellate court are not sustainable as the
orders have been passed against the fact and law. The learned
appellate court failed to appreciate that the petitioner is innocent
and it is a case of false implication. Learned Juvenile Justice
Board went on to hold that the release of the petitioner would
not be in the interest of the petitioner and would expose him to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
4/8
physical or psychological danger. At the same time, learned
appellate court rejected the prayer for bail considering the
nature of allegation, present status of the case and also on the
ground that the release of the petitioner likely to bring him into
association with known criminals or expose him to any moral,
physical or psychological danger and also danger to the victim
and her child but there is hardly any material to show that there
was physical or psychological danger to the petitioner. The
nature and gravity of the offence is immaterial for grant of bail
to a child in conflict with law as has been made clear by Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015. Learned counsel further submits that both the learned
courts below have failed to appreciate the statutory provisions
prescribed under the Act of 2015 and the ratio laid down by this
Court in the case of Lalu Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar
& Ors, reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 833. Learned counsel further
submits that the parents of the petitioner are ready to take care
of their child. The petitioner has got clean antecedent. The
petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2024 and cognizance has
been taken.
10. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently
oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
5/8
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is specific
allegation against the petitioner that he established physical
relationship with 12 years old granddaughter of the informant
and she became pregnant and thereafter, the petitioner refused to
marry her. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would defeat
the ends of justice.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
12. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear
that a CICL could be denied bail only on the ground that on
release, the said child would come in contact with criminal
elements or there was danger to the moral, physical and
psychological well being of the CICL or the release would defeat
the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could
not be denied to a CICL.
13.Further, the Act of 2015 is, in fact, child
friendly. The central theme is that the interest of child is supreme.
Section 3 of the Act of 2015 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(iv) of the Act of 2015 provides for the principle of best
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
6/8
interest and for 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. Section 3(xii)
of the Act of 2015 makes it abundantly clear that a child shall be
placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a
reasonable inquiry. Further, Section 3(xiii) of the Act of 2015
provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration stating that a
CICL shall have the right to re-unite with his family and be
restored to the social, cultural and the economic background that
he came from unless such restoration and repartition is not in the
CICL’s best interest.
14. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions
show the CICL should be released on bail unless the fact comes
on record that there was chance of such child coming in contact
with a known criminal or enlarging such child on bail might
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Further,
the courts being parens patriae are supposed to look into for
protection of best interest of the child. All such steps are to be
taken by the Courts for reformation and rehabilitation of a CICL.
15. From the record, I find that the petitioner was
a CICL at the time of occurrence and he remained in custody for
more than two years and be bears clean antecedent. From the
order of the learned appellate court, I hardly find any material to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
7/8
show that there is any basis before the learned appellate court to
arrive at its finding that release of the petitioner would allow him
to come in contact with his previous associates and his social,
physical and psychological well being would come to any harm
and the ends of justice would be defeated. Moreover, the purpose
of the Act of 2015 is the reformation of the child and the
institutionalization of a CICL is a matter of last resort and could
not be resorted to thinking that such custody would be for
betterment of the child and would psychologically make him a
good citizen. This is possible only under the guardianship of the
parents and other family members. Further, the nature of offence
cannot be made a ground to refuse bail to a CICL as held in case
of Lalu Kumar & Ors. (Supra).
16. Keeping these facts into mind, the orders
impugned cannot be sustained.
17. Accordingly, the order dated 04.07.2025
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2025 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Munger is set aside. Consequently,
the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Munger in J.J.B. Case No. 21 of 2025 arsing out of
Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024 rejecting the prayer
for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.
18. The petitioner, a CICL, is directed to be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1039 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
8/8
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Munger/concerned court in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 21 of
2025 arising out of Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 214 of 2024,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be the parents of
the petitioner and other bailor will also be
relative of the petitioner having no criminal
antecedent and shall give undertaking that
he/she shall keep proper care and upkeep
of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present
before the Board on each and every date of
trial of the case fixed by the Board.
19. The revision petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.06.2026
Transmission Date 25.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.