Chhotu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No.1380 of 2025
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2025 Thana- CHUTIA SAHAYAK District- Rohtas
======================================================
X1
                                                ... ... Petitioner
                         Versus
The State of Bihar
                                         ... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :        Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
   CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                    ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 29-06-2026

             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

 APP for the State.

              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. Therefore, the identity of the

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

              3. Registry while uploading the order on the website

 shall also ensure that the cause title and online status are

 reflected in similar manner.

             4. The instant criminal revision application has been

 preferred by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Act of 2015
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                            2/8




         challenging the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal

         No.44 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-

         cum-Children Court, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby the order dated

         14.07.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at

         Sasaram in JJB Case No.214 of 2025 arising out of Chhutiya P.S.

         Case No. 18 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under

         Sections 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been

         affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been

         dismissed.

                      5. As per prosecution case, on the basis of written

         report of Police Sub Inspector, Pramod Kumar Singh, Chhutiya

         P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 was registered under Sections 103(1) of

         BNS against unknown. It is alleged in the written report that dead

         bodies of two ladies have been recovered and subsequently, the

         name of the petitioner and other co-accused person transpired for

         being involved in aforesaid crime.

                      6. The petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2025. The

         petitioner claimed himself to be juvenile on the date of

         commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas as

         Sasaram determined the age of the petitioner X1 to be 17 years

         11 month and 13 days on the date of commission of the offence

         and declared the petitioner as CICL vide order dated 20.05.2025.

                      7. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                            3/8




         Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram. The Board rejected

         his application for bail vide order dated 14.07.2025 passed in JJB

         Case No. 214 of 2025.

                      8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2025

         passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram, the

         petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2025 in the court

         of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court,

         Rohtas at Sasaram. The appellate court vide order dated

         07.11.2025 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by

         the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram.

                      9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2025

         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 is innocent and has been

         falsely implicated in this case. There is no material against the

         petitioner to show his complicity. The allegation against the

         petitioner is not believable as the petitioner is physically

         handicapped by 80 percent. Learned counsel further submits that

         the allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is of honour

         killing of the sister of the petitioner and in order to save

         themselves, they also killed the eyewitness mother of the

         petitioner. But the allegation is also not believable that the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                            4/8




         petitioner was anyway involved in murder of his sister by

         catching hold of her while his co-accused father strangulated her

         considering the physical incapacity of the petitioner. Learned

         counsel further submits that learned JJ Board without discussing

         any material has observed that there was mental, physical and

         psychological danger to the petitioner if released on bail and also

         held that there was chance of petitioner coming in contact with

         criminal elements. But the petitioner is having clean antecedent

         and there is no record of any previous association with criminal

         elements. Further, there was no material to show any danger of

         any kind to the petitioner. The learned appellate court upheld the

         order of the learned JJ Board considering the enormity of

         allegation but under Section 12 of the JJ Act, grant of bail is

         mandatory unless the exceptions carved out in the proviso are

         attracted. The seriousness of allegation or gravity of offence

         could not be any consideration for refusal of bail to the petitioner.

         Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the elder brother

         of the petitioner is ready to take care of petitioner and undertakes

         that he would not allow the petitioner to come into association

         with any known/unknown criminals or bad elements or the

         petitioner would be exposed to any moral, physical or

         psychological danger. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the

         orders impugned are not sustainable.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                            5/8




                      11. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission

         made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits 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 and the appeal of the petitioner was rejected

         on completely valid ground. Learned APP further submits that

         the social background condition of the petitioner reflects that the

         petitioner, under the influence of his co-accused father, has

         committed the offence. It shows that the release of the petitioner

         would bring him into association of known criminal or he would

         further commit such type of offence.

                      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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                            6/8




         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.

                      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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                            7/8




         taken by the Courts for reformation and rehabilitation of a CICL.

                      16. In the present case, the learned appellate court

         entirely went by the enormity of the offence of double murder in

         which the petitioner is said to be an active participant. However,

         the provision under Section 12 of the JJ Act makes it very much

         clear that the seriousness of allegation or enormity of offence are

         no consideration for refusal of bail to the petitioner. Further, in

         the case of Lalu Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors,

         2019 (4) PLJR 833, it has been held that the nature of offence

         cannot be made a ground to refuse bail to a CICL. So far as

         observation made by the learned JJ Board and upheld by the

         learned appellate court about petitioner being exposed to any

         mental, physical or psychological danger is concerned, there is

         no material or reason discussed for such finding. Therefore, the

         orders impugned cannot be sustained.

                      17. Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in

         Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2025 by the learned Additional

         Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Children Court, Rohtas at Sasaram is set

         aside. Consequently, the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the

         learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in JJB Case

         No. 214 of 2025 arsing out of Chhutiya P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025

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

                      18. The petitioner, a CICL, is directed to be released
             Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1380 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
                                                         8/8




                      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, Rohtas at

                      Sasaram/concerned court in connection with JJB Case No. 214 of

                      2025 arising out of Chhutiya P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025, subject to

                      the following conditions:

                                         (i) One of the bailors will be the elder
                                         brother 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)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          01.07.2026
Transmission Date       01.07.2026