Gaurav Poddar @ Gaurav KumarversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                        CRIMINAL REVISION No.1205 of 2025
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2022 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur
     ======================================================
     X1
                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                              Versus
1.    The State of Bihar
2.   Y1

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :        Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Advocate
                                      Mr. Nawazul Haque, Advocate
                                      Mr. Nihal Beg, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
     ======================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 23-06-2026

                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      APP for the State. Though notice has been received by the

      brother of the opposite party no. 2, there is no representation on

      her behalf.

                    2. 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.       Further,      the

      informant/opposite party no. 2 is also a minor and her is being

      disclosed in the petition, which is also against the statutory
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            2/9




         provisions prescribed under the law. Therefore, the identities of

         the petitioner/CICL and the informant/opposite party no. 2 are

         being referred to in the cause title as ‘X1’ and ‘Y1’, respectively.

                      3. Registry while uploading the order on the website

         shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.

                      4. The instant criminal revision application has been

         preferred by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Act of 2015

         challenging the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal

         No.26 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-

         cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Samastipur whereby the

         order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,

         Samastipur in JJB Case No.3727 of 2023 arising out of

         Samastipur Nagar P.S. Case No. 307 of 2022 registered for the

         offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, 379/34 of the

         Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act has been

         affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been

         dismissed.

                      5. As per prosecution case, the minor informant Y1

         instituted Samastipur Nagar P.S. Case No. 307 of 2022 for the

         offences under Sections 376, 506, 379/34 of IPC and Sections 4

         & 6 of the POCSO Act. In her written report, she alleged that she

         came in contact with the petitioner and developed intimacy with

         him. Subsequently, the petitioner took her to a hotel room where
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            3/9




         he sexually assaulted her and also prepared a video of the act.

         Thereafter, the petitioner started blackmailing the informant

         giving threat of making the video viral and the petitioner started

         extorting money and ultimately, made her handover some gold

         ornaments of her family.

                      6. After registration of the FIR, the petitioner was

         arrested on 23.05.2025. The petitioner claimed himself to be

         juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Juvenile

         Justice Board, Samastipur determined the age of the petitioner

         X1 to be 16 years 01 month and 06 days on the date of

         commission of the offence and declared the petitioner as CICL

         vide order dated 23.05.2025.

                      7. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the

         Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur. The Board rejected his

         application for bail vide order dated 17.06.2025.

                      8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2025

         passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur, the petitioner

         preferred appeal in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions

         Judge-cum- Special Judge, Children Court, Samastipur. The

         appellate court vide order dated 22.07.2025 dismissed the appeal

         and upheld the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,

         Samastipur.

                      9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            4/9




         22.07.2025 passed by the appellate court, the petitioner has

         moved the present revision petition before this Court.

                      10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

         petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated

         in this case and he is innocent. The deposition of the

         informant/victim has been recorded by the learned appellate

         court and she did not support her case. She rather stated that she

         gave statement before the court under pressure of her family

         members. Learned counsel further submits that, thus, it is clear

         from her statement that the petitioner has no involvement in the

         whole occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that even

         during investigation, no video has been brought on record for

         which the informant claims she was being blackmailed. The

         informant was in love with some other boy and has solemnized

         the marriage with him and at the time of deposition, she came

         with her husband. Learned counsel further submits that the

         medical report does not support sexual assault as no sign of

         sexual assault was found and it also appears from medical report

         that the prosecutrix might be major on the date of alleged

         occurrence. All these facts go on to show that the petitioner has

         been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the family

         members of the informant as the petitioner was on inimical terms

         with the parents of the informant. Learned counsel further
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            5/9




         submits that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the

         learned appellate court refused to grant bail to the petitioner

         merely on assumption. The learned JJ Board rejected the prayer

         for bail mainly on the basis of Social Investigation Report (SIR)

         wherein it has been mentioned that there was lack of parental

         guidance and pampering leading to CICL’s association with other

         boys in the area with criminal behavior resulting in unlawful act.

         It has also been mentioned in the SIR that there was lack of

         communication with parents and lack of gender sensitization. But

         there are no material to make such inference and it is only based

         on presumption. Similarly, the learned appellate court held that

         the release of the CICL would allow him to come into association

         with any known criminals and his release would defeat the ends

         of justice but again there was no material for arrive at such

         conclusion. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner

         has become major and he himself undertakes that he would not

         indulge in any unlawful activity and would not join any

         antisocial elements. The petitioner is in custody since

         23.05.2025. 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.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            6/9




                      11. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission

         made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that there

         is serious allegation against the petitioner for committing rape

         and blackmailing the victim. Learned APP further submits that

         the SIR is against the release of the petitioner. Thus, the learned

         APP contends that there is no infirmity in the orders of the

         learned courts below and said orders have been passed after due

         consideration of facts and law involved in the case.

                      12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

         rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

                      13. 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.

                      14. 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            7/9




         help the child to develop full potential. In fact, Section 3(iv) of

         the Act of 2015 provides for the principle of best 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.

                      15. 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.

                      16. In the present case, though SIR talks about lack of

         parental guidance and association of the petitioner with criminals
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                            8/9




         and also lack of gender sensitization, there appears no

         substantive material to make such inference. Further taking into

         consideration the deposition of the informant/victim wherein she

         completely absolved the petitioner of any wrong doing, I am of

         the considered opinion that the impugned orders could not be

         sustained and the petitioner could be enlarged on bail. The nature

         and gravity of offence cannot be made a ground to refuse bail to

         a CICL as held in case of Lalu Kumar & Ors. (Supra).

                      17. Accordingly, the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in

         Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025 by the learned Additional

         Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Children Court, Samastipur is set aside.

         Consequently, the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned

         Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in JJB Case No. 3727 of 2023

         arsing out of Samastipur Nagar P.S. Case No. 307 of 2022

         rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.

                      18. The petitioner is directed to be 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, Samastipur/concerned court in

         connection with JJB Case No. 3727 of 2023 arising out of

         Samastipur Nagar P.S. Case No. 307 of 2022, subject to the

         following conditions:

                            (i) One of the bailors will be the parents of
             Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1205 of 2025 dt.23-06-2026
                                                         9/9




                                         the petitioner and other bailor will also be
                                         relative of the petitioner having no criminal
                                         antecedent and the petitioner shall give
                                         undertaking that he shall not indulge in any
                                         unlawful activity and would not join any
                                         antisocial elements.
                                         (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)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          25.06.2026
Transmission Date       25.06.2026