Patna High Court
XXX (Minor)versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The revision petition is allowed; the earlier orders denying bail are set aside and the child is directed to be released on bail.
Summary
The petition was filed by the guardian of a 15‑year‑old child accused of murdering an 8‑year‑old boy, seeking to set aside the denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge. The lower authorities had refused bail on the ground that the child’s release might expose him to danger and impede reformation, relying on a presumed threat from the informant’s family. The High Court examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 12, which permits bail unless there are reasonable grounds of danger or association with known criminals. Finding no substantive material to support the alleged danger and emphasizing the paramount interest of the child’s re‑integration with family, the Court held that institutionalisation was not in the child’s best interest. Consequently, the Court set aside the earlier orders, allowed the revision petition, and directed that the child be released on bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be denied to a child in conflict with law under the JJ Act in the absence of material evidence of danger or association with criminals.
- Whether keeping the child in an observation home serves the reformatory purpose compared to release to family.
- Whether the lower courts erred in interpreting the JJ Act and the precedent set in Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34, 364, 365
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 3(i), 3(iv), 3(v), 3(xiii)
Subjects
- bail
- child in conflict with law
- Juvenile Justice Act
- reformation
- observation home
- protective custody
- murder
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1171 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2024 Thana- DESARI District- Vaishali
======================================================
XXX (Minor) Wife of Dhaneshwar Ram @ Jimdar Ram Under the
guardianship of his mother and natural guardian namely Sheela Devi aged 45
yrs., Resident of village - Sahdei Buzurg, P.S.- Desari, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Priyanka Devi Wife of Late Laxmi Ram Resident of Village - Sahdei
Buzurg, P.S.- Desari, Dist.- Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bela Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anish Mr. Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Shambhavi Priya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate
Mr. Gaurang Darshan Dixit, Advocate
======================================================
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 informant.
02. The present petition has been filed for setting aside
the Judgment/Order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Children Court, Vaishali at
Hajipur passed in Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 2025 whereby and
whereunder the prayer for bail of the petitioner/child in conflict
with law was rejected and affirmed the order dated 19.10.2024
passed by the learned J.J. Board, Vaishali at Hajipur rejecting
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
2/8
the prayer for bail by the petitioner in GR No. 2565 of 2024 in
connection with Desari (Sahdei) P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024 for
the offences registered under Section 365 of the IPC however
Charge sheet has been submitted under Section 364, 302, 201,
120b, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. Briefly stated facts of the case is that the informant
Priyanka Devi lodged Desari P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024 under
Section 365 of the IPC against unknown when her 8 year old
son went missing. Subsequently, the dead body of the missing
child was recovered and names of the petitioner and other
coaccused persons transpired for being involved in the murder
of the minor son of the informant. Charge sheet has been
submitted under Section 364, 302, 201, 120B, 34 of the IPC.
The petitioner was apprehended and has been in protective
custody since 26.05.2024. The learned J.J. Board determined the
age of the petitioner vide its order dated 20.07.2024 and
declared the age of the petitioner on the date of occurrence to be
15 years and thus the petitioner was found to be a child in
conflict with law (in short “CICL”).
04. Subsequently the prayer for bail was made on
behalf of the petitioner but the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Vaishali at Hajipur rejected the prayer of the petitioner vide
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
3/8
order dated 19.10.2024 passed in J.J.B. No. 135 of 2024 arising
out of Desari P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024. Feeling aggrieved by
the rejection order, the petitioner approached the learned court
of Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge Children
Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No. 17 of 2025 but the
learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal vide its
order/judgement dated 08.08.2025 and thus rejected the prayer
for grant of bail of the petitioner and upheld the order of the
learned J.J. Board, Vaishali at Hajipur. Against the rejection
orders, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was registered against
the unknown persons and subsequently the petitioner’s name
transpired in this case. The learned appellate court observed that
there was chance of physical harm coming to the petitioner due
to land dispute with the informant and it was in the best interest
of the petitioner to keep him in observation home. The same was
mentioned in the social investigation report. Learned appellate
court also recorded its finding that as the informant and the
petitioner are co-villagers and allegation against the petitioner is
that he murdered the 08 year old son of the informant in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
4/8
revenge, if the petitioner is released on bail, there would be
danger to the safety and security of the petitioner. More or less
this was also the view of the learned J. J. Board. Bu the said
view is not correct. The said reasoning is based on presumption
and not on any substantive material. Learned counsel further
submits that no material has been collected by the police during
investigation against the petitioner and only on the basis of
confessional statement of coaccused persons, the petitioner has
been named in this case. Mother of the petitioner is ready and
willing to take care of the petitioner and she undertakes that
petitioner would not come in association with any criminal. A
number of coaccused persons have been granted bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 and
20.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84296 of 2024 and Cr. Misc.
No. 6210 of 2024, respectively. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner is having clean antecedent and he is in
custody since 26.05.2024. Thus, the learned counsel submits
that the impugned order is bad and the same needs to be set
aside and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
06. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
and opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposes the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
5/8
opposite party no. 2 submits that release of the petitioner would
not serve any useful purpose and it would not be good for his
betterment as he would be put under guardianship of his mother
but the mother of the petitioner is also accused in connection
with Desari P.S. Case No. 171 of 2024. If the mother is also
facing charges of murder, the same would frustrate the
reformatory aspect of the matter. There is no chance for
reformation in the child in conflict with law by putting him back
to his home.
07. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
08. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short “the J.J. Act”) makes
it clear that gravity and nature of offences are immaterial for
consideration of grant of bail to a CICL. Bail could be denied to
the child in conflict with law only on the reasonable grounds for
believing that that enlarging him on bail would bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose the said person
to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice. In the instant case, the petitioner bears
clean antecedent and except for the revenge angle there is no
other ground given for rejection of the prayer for grant of bail to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
6/8
the petitioner/CICL. Further there is no substantive material on
record to show that there was moral, physical or psychological
danger to the petitioner or that the release of child would expose
him to known criminal and frustrate the ends of justice. It seems
merely on apprehension that the 08 year old son of the informant
was killed by the petitioner and others, the petitioner might
come to harm if released on bail. But this is mere apprehension
and is not supported by any material available on record. It has
been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party no. 2 that mother of the petitioner is also
facing charges of murder of son of the informant but the mother
has been allowed bail as specific averment in this regard is
submitted in paragraph 14 of the petition. Allowing a CICL to be
in the care of his family members is always better instead of
institutionalization of such child as it has been seen that
development of child in conflict with law and his betterment is
best insured by keeping him in the home environment. Even the
principles laid down under Section 3 (i), (iv)&(v) of the J.J.Act
make it clear that the interest of the child is paramount and all
possible steps should be taken for reformation of child. Section
3(xiii) of the JJ Act provides for Principle of repatriation and
restoration which reads as follows:
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
7/8
“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.”
09. Considering the interest of the petitioner to be of
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, institutionalization is not in the best interest of child
and should be shunned. Therefore, the petitioner/CICL deserves
to be sent to home instead of keeping him in protective custody.
10. 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. Accordingly, the
Judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children
Court), Vaishali at Hajipur and order dated 19.10.2024 passed
by the J.J. Board, Vaishali at Hajipur are set aside and present
Patna High Court CR. REV. No. 1171 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
8/8
revision petition is allowed.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner/CICL 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, Vaishali at Hajipur/concerned court, in connection with
J.J.B No. 135/2024 arising out of Desari(Sahdei) P.S. Case No.
171 of 2045, 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.
12. 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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.