Patna High Court
Kishan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Bail must be granted to the child in conflict with law as none of the grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are satisfied, and the lower orders denying bail are set aside.
Summary
The petition was filed by Vijay Paswan, a 17‑year‑old child in conflict with law (CICL), who had been denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and subsequently by an Additional Sessions Judge‑cum‑Children Court in a case involving alleged kidnapping and sexual assault under the BNS Act, POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner sought bail through a criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, arguing that the lower courts erred in refusing bail without satisfying the specific grounds prescribed in Section 12 of the Act. The High Court examined the statutory framework, emphasizing the principle of the best interest of the child and noting that bail can be denied only if release would expose the child to criminal elements, physical/psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Finding no material to support such grounds, the Court held that the lower courts had misapplied the law. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the earlier orders were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be denied to a child in conflict with law absent the specific grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offence can be a ground to refuse bail to a CICL.
- Whether the lower courts erred in finding that the release of the CICL would expose him to physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNS) Act — s. 96
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 102, 12, 3(iv), 3(xii), 3(xiii), 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 4, 6
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- child in conflict with law
- Juvenile Justice Act
- best interest of child
- Section 12
- criminal revision
- POCSO
- SC/ST Act
- kidnapping
- sexual assault
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.695 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
X1
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vijay Paswan S/o Late Mishrilal Paswan R/o Bhutahi(Sonbarsa) Dist.-
Sitamarhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Prem Kumar Paswan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-07-2026
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
02. 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.
03. Registry while uploading the order on the
website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
2/9
similar manner.
04. The instant criminal revision petition has been
preferred by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Act of 2015
challenging the judgment dated 12.06.2025 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 13 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I -cum- Children Court, Sitamarhi, whereby the order
dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Sitamarhi in J.J.B. Case No. 1989 of 2025 arising out of
Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 has been affirmed and the
appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
05. The informant-opposite party no. 2 has
instituted Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, dated 25.01.2025
registered for the offences under Section 96 BNS, Section 4/6
POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2) (va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The informant alleged that the
petitioner and other co-accused enticed away his daughter and
also her friend with intention of marrying them. During
investigation the petitioner was apprehended and put in custody
on 31.01.2025.
06. During investigation the petitioner was
apprehended and put in custody on 31.01.2025 and learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi determined the age of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
3/9
petitioner to be 17 years 3 months 16 days on the date of
occurrence and was declared juvenile/child in conflict with law
(CICL) on 23.04.2025. The CICL filed a petition for grant of
bail but vide order dated 30.04.2025 the learned Juvenile Justice
Board rejected the prayer for bail made on behalf of CICL.
07. Against the rejection order passed by learned
Juvenile Justice Board in J.J.B. No. 1989 of 2025, the CICL
approached the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I
-cum- Children Court, Sitamarhi in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of
2025 and the learned appellate court did not find any illegality
in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal on merit vide its
judgment dated 12.06.2025.
08. Being aggrieved by the order of learned
appellate court, the CICL has filed the present revision petition
seeking bail.
09. Learned counsel for the petitioner (CICL)
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the
FIR has been lodged after delay of four days without any
explanation. The victim girls have been recovered but they did
not support the case and made the story of kidnapping false as
has been brought on record through its report by the informant.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
4/9
It is also not believable that the petitioner, all alone, kidnapped
two girls of his age group. The learned courts below completely
misjudged the situation and did not take note of love affair
between the petitioner and the victim. The petitioner is nearly
aged about 18 years and in the given background, the facts of
the case ought to have been appreciated. Learned counsel also
submits that the learned appellate court as well as learned
Juvenile Justice Board recorded their observation that there was
apprehension that the release of the petitioner would not be in
the interest of the petitioner and would expose him to physical
or psychological danger. There is no material on record to arrive
at such finding. Learned counsel next submits that the nature
and gravity of the offence is immaterial for grant of bail to a
child in conflict with law as has been made clear by Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015. 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 further
submits that the parents of the petitioner are ready to take care
of their child. The petitioner has got clean antecedent. The
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
5/9
petitioner is in custody since 31.01.2025.
10. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently
oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is very
serious allegation against the petitioner for sexually assaulting
the daughter of the informant. Learned counsel further submits
the learned courts below recorded their finding that the release
of the petitioner would expose him to physical and
psychological danger and therefore, bail was denied to the
petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail, it would defeat
the ends of justice.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
12. 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.
13.Further, the Act of 2015 is, in fact, child
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
6/9
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.
14. 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
7/9
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.
15. In the present case, the facts before the
Juvenile Justice Board or learned appellate court did not show
any imminent danger to the petitioner of moral, physical and
psychological danger rather their appears lack of vision for
arriving at aforementioned finding by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board as well as learned appellate court. From the order
of the learned appellate court, I hardly find any material to show
that there is any basis before the learned appellate court to arrive
at its finding that release of the petitioner would allow him to
come in contact with his previous associates and his social,
physical and psychological well being would come to any harm
and the ends of justice would be defeated. 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 resorted to 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
8/9
parents and other family members. 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).
16. Keeping these facts into mind, the orders
impugned cannot be sustained.
17. Accordingly, the judgment dated 12.06.2025
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2025 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I -cum- Children Court, Sitamarhi is
set aside. Consequently, the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by
the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi in J.J.B. Case No.
1989 of 2025 arsing out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025
rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.
18. 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,
Sitamarhi/concerned court in connection with J.J.B. Case No.
1989 of 2025 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 23 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
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.695 of 2025 dt.06-07-2026
9/9
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)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date 08.07.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.