Patna High Court

Child in Conflict with law (Herinafter CICL)Paras Kumar @ Paras Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The appellate court erred in denying bail; in the absence of statutory grounds, the child in conflict with law must be released on bail.

Summary

Paras Kumar, a minor declared a child in conflict with law, was accused of murdering his informant's wife. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge denied his bail, citing alleged danger to his physical and psychological well‑being and lack of guardian interest. The petitioner filed a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arguing that the statutory grounds for bail denial under Section 12 were absent and that the best‑interest provisions of the Act required his release. The High Court examined the Act’s child‑friendly principles, the absence of any material showing danger or contact with criminal elements, and the precedent of Lalu Kumar v. State of Bihar. Finding no valid ground to refuse bail, the Court set aside both the appellate and JJB orders and directed the release of the petitioner on bail with conditions. The revision petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of bail to a child in conflict with law contravenes Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Whether the grounds of danger to the child’s moral, physical or psychological well‑being or defeat of the ends of justice are established in the present case.
Whether the best‑interest of the child principle under Section 3 of the Act mandates bail in the absence of statutory grounds for refusal.

Legislation cited

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 102, 12, 3

Subjects

bail
child in conflict with law
Juvenile Justice Act
best interest of child
revision
criminal procedure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1265 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-553 Year-2024 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Child in Conflict with law (Herinafter CICL)Paras Kumar @ Paras Kumar
Yadav Minor Son of Amrendra Yadav D.O.B. - 05-04-2010, R/o Village -
Fatehpur, P.O. - Jharkhara, PS. - Narpatganj, Dist. - Araria, under the
guardianship of sister namely Khusbu Kumari(Female - 21 years), W/o Laltu
Kumar, R/o Village - Jiwachpur - Ward no. 02, P.S. - Chhatpur, Dist. - Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Binod Kumar Son of Late Sahitlal Yadav R/o Fatehpur Jharkaha, W.N. - 21,
P.S. - Narpatganj, Dist. - Araria.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
For the Informant/O.P. No.2: Mr. Vijay Kumar Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-06-2026

Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant/opposite

party no. 2.

02. The instant criminal revision application has been

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

challenging the judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 25 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

I cum Special Judge(Chidren Court), Araria, whereby the order

dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
2/9

Araria in JJB Case No. 132 of 2024 arising out of Narpatganj

P.S. Case No. 553 of 2024 has been affirmed and the appeal

preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 553 of 2024 has been instituted on the

written report of the informant Vinod Kumar, wherein the

informant alleged that his wife was done to death by the

petitioner/CICL and his other family members instigated him to

kill his wife. The petitioner surrendered on 10.12.2024 and he

was declared a child in conflict with law (CICL) vide order

dated 07.01.2025 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Araria.

Thereafter, his prayer for bail was rejected by the learned

Juvenile Justice Board, Araria vide the order dated 11.06.2025.

Aggrieved by the rejection order of Learned Juvenile Justice

Board, the petitioner moved before the court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge (Children

Court), Araria in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2025 but in vain as

the learned appellate court also rejected his prayer for bail while

upholding the order of the learned Juvenile Justice Board by its

order dated 06.10.2025. Feeling aggrieved by concurrent orders

of rejection, the petitioner approached this Court in the instant

revision petition.

04. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
3/9

submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by

the learned appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board

without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances and

without considering the law on this point. There is no eye-

witness to the occurrence and the informant in his written report

has stated that he was outside the State and returned to his house

on hearing about the murder of his wife. There is much delay in

the registration of FIR that has remained unexplained. The

informant is none other than the own uncle of the petitioner.

Taking advantage of death of his wife, the informant has roped

all the family members of the petitioner. The so called eye-

witness is the younger daughter of the informant and the FIR

was registered after deliberation and afterthought. Therefore, the

petitioner was made accused in the case merely on suspicion

and with ulterior motive. Learned counsel further submits that

the petitioner has got clean antecedent and none of the

conditions for refusal of bail to a child in conflict with law is

present in the instant case. There is no chance of petitioner

coming into contact with known criminal and there is no

possibility of any mental, physical or psychological danger to

the petitioner or his release defeating the ends of justice.

Learned counsel further submits that both the courts, learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
4/9

Appellate Court as well as learned Juvenile Justice Board,

though mentioned that there was lack of guardianship in the

family and came to a finding that there might be mental,

physical and psychological danger to the petitioner, there is no

substantive material to support this finding. At the same time,

the learned Appellate Court holding that there was chance of

retaliation by the other side is also without any material on

record. Learned counsel also submits that the lack of interest of

the guardians of the petitioner in receiving the police papers has

also been cited as one of the instances refusing release of the

petitioner in the guardianship of his parents is also not

sustainable as the parents of the petitioner have also been made

accused in this case and they have recently been enlarged on

bail. Therefore, the order dated 06.10.2025 of the learned

appellate court and order dated 11.06.2025 of the learned

Juvenile Justice Board are not sustainable. 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 also submits that sister of the

CICL, who is not an accused in the case, is ready to take the

petitioner under her guardianship and will ensure that the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
5/9

petitioner does not fall in that company or any harm to come his

way.

05. Learned APP for the State as well as learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party

no.2 vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.

2 further submits that there is direct allegation against the

petitioner that he assaulted his own aunt with sword and

murdered her. Learned counsel also submits that the learned

appellate court has noted in its order that the guardians of the

petitioner are nor showing any interest and did not even receive

any police papers and subsequently, did not turn up to cross-

examine the witnesses which shows the lack of interest by the

guardians of the petitioner and there is every possibility that the

release of the petitioner would frustrate the ends of justice.

06. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

07. 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
6/9

CICL.

08. 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 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.

09. 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
7/9

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.

10. Now the learned appellate court as well as the

learned Juvenile Justice Board has though mentioned the fact

about the danger to mental, physical and psychological well-

being of the child in conflict with law/petitioner herein and also

about the disinterestedness of the guardians of the petitioner.

Both these grounds are not sustainable. There is no material to

show that there is mental, physical and psychological danger to

the petitioner or other side would take retribution against the

petitioner. The record does not support such findings. Therefore,

I am of the view that the learned appellate court has erred on

this point and the order of the learned appellate court is not

sustainable. 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 used 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.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
8/9

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).

The petitioner is having clean antecedent. The petitioner has

remained in custody for more than one year and six months and

charge sheet has been submitted.

11. Keeping these facts into mind, the orders impugned

cannot be sustained.

12. Accordingly, the order dated 06.10.2025 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2025 by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge (Children Court), Araria is

set aside. Consequently, the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the

learned Juvenile Justice Board, Araria in JJB Case No. 132 of

2024 arising out of Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 553 of 2024

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

13. The petitioner, a CICL, 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, Araria/concerned

court in connection with JJB Case No. 132 of 2024 arising out of

Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 553 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1265 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
9/9

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.

14. The revision petition stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

DKS/

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.07.2026
Transmission Date 01.07.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.