Patna High Court

X1versusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The seriousness of the alleged offence cannot be a ground to deny bail to a child in conflict with law; bail must be granted if the best‑interest of the child is satisfied and no danger or defeat of justice is shown.

Summary

The petition filed by a 15‑year‑old child in conflict with law (identified as X1) sought bail after the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge rejected his bail application in a kidnapping‑rape case. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedent, and that the lower courts erred by denying bail on the basis of the seriousness of the alleged offences. The State contended that the child was part of a gang that committed kidnapping and rape, and therefore should remain in custody. The High Court held that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the gravity of the offence cannot be a ground to refuse bail; bail may be denied only if release would expose the child to danger or defeat the ends of justice. Emphasising the best‑interest principle under Section 3 of the Act and citing Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders and granted bail with conditions, directing the child's release to his family.

Issues considered

The legality of rejecting bail for a child in conflict with law on the ground of seriousness of the alleged offence under the Juvenile Justice Act
Whether the petitioner’s release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice
Whether the lower courts complied with the best‑interest of the child principle under Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Whether the identity disclosure of the juvenile violates Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable (BNS) (relevant criminal statutes) — s. 137(2), 70(2), 96/3(5)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 3, 74
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 6

Subjects

juvenile justice
bail
child in conflict with law
best interest of child
POCSO
revision
protective custody
identity protection

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1144 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- Sahayak Khajanchi District- Purnia
======================================================
X1

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XXX S/O-YYY At present R/O Mohalla- Molvibari, Rajani Chowk, Ward
No. 25, P.S- Sahayak Khazanchi, Distt.- Purnea. Permanent Address-
Mohalla- Gokul Singh Thakurbari, Rajani Chowk, Ward No. 25, P.S-
Sahayak Khazanchi, Distt.- Purnea.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2026

From office note, it appears notice has been validly

served upon the informant/OP No. 2.

02. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the State.

03. From perusal of record, I find that the description

of the petitioner has been given in the petition and reflected in

the cause title which is inappropriate as the same is against the

statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which

mandates protection of disclosure of identity of the

juvenile/child in conflict with law. Therefore, the identity of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
2/9

petitioner is being referred to in the cause title as X1.

04. Office is directed to mask the name of the

petitioner and ensure that the pseudonym is reflected in the

order.

05. The petitioner is a child in conflict with law and

the instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of the

petitioner for setting aside the impugned judgment dated

24.09.205 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-

Special Judge (Children Court), Purnea in Criminal Appeal No.

20/2025 arising out J.J.B. No.446 of 2025 in connection with

Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025 for the offences

under Section 137(2), 96/3(5) of the BNS and subsequently

Section 70(2) of BNS and Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act

whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

1-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Purnea dismissed the

criminal appeal of the petitioner and the order of learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Purnea was upheld.

06. The present revision is also preferred against order

dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,

Purnea in Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025

wherein the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected.

07. As per prosecution case, the informant Rajkumar
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
3/9

Das instituted Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025

against three coaccused persons for kidnapping of his minor

daughter. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case

during investigation. The petitioner has been in protective

custody since 17.07.2025 and the learned Juvenile Justice

Board, Purnea determined the age of the petitioner vide order

dated 30.07.2025 declaring him to be a child in conflict with

law (CICL) finding his age to be 15 years 05 months and 16

days on the date of occurrence.

08. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.07.2025 prayer

for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Purnea in J.J. Case No. 446 of 2025 arising out of

Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No. 163 of 2025. Aggrieved by

the rejection order of his bail, the petitioner approached the

Court of learned Additional Session Judge-I-cum-Special Judge,

Children Court, Purnea in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2025.

However, the learned appellate court did not find any error or

illegality in the rejection order of the learned J.J. Board, Purnea

and refused the prayer for bail of the petitioner and upheld the

order of the learned J.J. Board, Purnea thereby the appeal filed

by the petitioner was dismissed. Now, against these two orders

of rejection of prayer for bail, the petitioner has come to this
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
4/9

Court by filing the present revision petition.

09. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not

been named in the case at the first instance. Even the victim did

not name the petitioner when her statement was recorded under

Section 180 and Section 183 of the BNSS. Learned counsel

further submits that petitioner is a student of class 11 and due to

his custody, his studies have suffered. Learned counsel further

submits that the rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner

by learned J.J. Board and learned appellate court has been on

the ground of nature and severity of the offence and also on the

ground of threat to the petitioner and possibility of exposure to

criminal elements. The learned appellate court reiterated these

grounds and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for bail. But the

petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and there is no

material on record to show that there was moral, physical or

psychological danger to the petitioner. Gravity of the offence

could not be a reason to deny the bail to a juvenile petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that it has also been observed

by the learned appellate court that the guardian of the petitioner

have not been providing proper care to the petitioner and he is in

bad company. But again, there is no material on record to make
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
5/9

such inference.

10. Learned counsel further submits that in fact, the

petitioner has not participated in the alleged offences and only

on suspicion he has been made accused in this case. The mother

of the petitioner is ready to undertake that she would take proper

care of the petitioner and also restrain him from joining any

criminal activities. The petitioner has no concern with any

criminal gang and his release is not likely to bring him to

association with any criminal element or expose him to moral,

physical or psychological danger. It is also not that release of the

petitioner could defeat the ends of justice. Thus, the learned

counsel submits that the impugned orders are bad and the same

needs to be set aside and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

11. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the

submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP

submits that the petitioner and other coaccused persons

conspired with each other and kidnapped the daughter of the

informant. It is a case of gang rape and the petitioner and other

coaccused persons administered spiked cold drink to the victim

and thereafter committed rape with her. This shows the criminal

bent of mind of the petitioner. If he is released from custody,

there is every possibility that the petitioner would come in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
6/9

contact with his peer group which was involved in such type of

activity. Learned APP thus submits that the petitioner could not

be allowed to roam free in public.

12. Perused the record.

13. At the outset, it is made clear that under Section

12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act

(in short ‘the J.J. Act’) seriousness of allegation cannot be

ground for rejection of prayer for bail of the child in conflict

with law. The prayer for bail could be rejected only on the

ground that release of the CICL would likely to bring him into

association with any known criminal or expose the CICL to

moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release

would defeat the ends of justice. So far as reliance placed by the

learned appellate court or the learned J.J. Board, Purnea for

rejection of bail on exposure of the petitioner to moral, physical

and psychological danger or the petitioner coming into

association with any known criminal elements is concerned, I do

not find much material available on record to make such

inference.

14. Further in Section 3 of the J.J. Act there are some

salutary provisions governing the well being of a CICL. Section

3(iv) of the J.J. Act provides for the principle of best interest and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
7/9

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 J.J. Act makes it abundantly clear that a child shall

be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after

making a reasonable inquiry. Section 3(xiii) of the J.J. Act

provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration which

reads as follows:

“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.”

15. The learned Juvenile Justice Board and the learned

appellate court have failed to appreciate the statutory provisions

prescribed under the J.J. Act of 2015 and the ratio laid down by

this Court in Lalu Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar &

Ors. reported in 2019(4) PLJR 833. Underlying principle is

the best interest of the child and gravity and nature of offences

are immaterial for consideration of grant of bail to a

child/juvenile in conflict with law.

16. Considering the interest of the petitioner to be of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
8/9

paramount importance and further finding that keeping the child

in observation home may not serve the purpose of his

reformation as there could be no better place for growth and

development of a child other than his own house with his family

members. In the best interest of the child and considering the

clean antecedent of the petitioner and his continued custody

since 17.07.2025, the petitioner X1/child in conflict with law is

directed be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties

of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Purnea/concerned court, in connection with J.J.

No. 446/2025 arising out of Sahayak Khazanchi P.S. Case No.

163 of 2025, 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 giving
undertaking that he/she shall keep proper
care and upkeep of the appellant.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present
before the Board on each and every date of
trial of the case fixed by the Board and
shall fully co-operate in the pending
enquiry/trial.

17. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 24.09.2025

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge

(Children Court), Purnea and order dated 31.07.2025 passed by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1144 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
9/9

the J.J. Board, Purnea are set aside and present revision petition

is allowed.

18. Office is directed to return the Lower Court

Record forthwith.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE -
Uploading Date 25.06.2026
Transmission Date 25.06.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.