Patna High Court
Child In Conflict With Law XX through his Mother Guardianship Suganti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The appellate court's order denying bail was erroneous; the child in conflict with law must be released on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Summary
The petition filed by a 16‑year‑old child in conflict with law (CICL) sought bail after the Juvenile Justice Board and the District & Additional Sessions Judge denied it in a murder case. The petitioner argued that the FIR named him only on suspicion, that his confessional statement implicated only the co‑accused, and that the SIR and SBR reports were speculative. The court examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates bail for a CICL unless there are reasonable grounds of danger, association with criminals, or defeat of justice. Finding no material showing such danger or risk, the court held that the appellate court erred in relying solely on the reports and set aside both the appellate and Juvenile Justice Board orders. Consequently, the CICL was released on bail with a Rs.10,000 bond and specified conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be denied to a child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act when no material shows risk of association with criminals or danger.
- Whether the SIR and SBR reports alone justify denial of bail to a juvenile.
- Whether the appellate court erred in applying the proviso to Section 12 in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (B.N.S.) Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5), 61(2)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 12, 74
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- juvenile justice
- child in conflict with law
- Section 12
- SIR report
- SBR report
- revision petition
- identity protection
- Section 74
- murder case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.982 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj
======================================================
X2
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shivdayal Ram NA Resident of Village - Bakhraur Jaddi, PS- Barauli, Dist-
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Md Danish Quamar, Advocate
Ms. Madiha Moneer, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-06-2026
Present learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State. Despite sufficient opportunity, no one
has put up appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2.
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,
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 X2.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
2/8
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 petition is directed
against the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned District
and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj (Children Court) in
Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the
appeal was dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Gopalganj dated 27.06.2025 passed in J.E. No. 244 of
2025, arising out of Barauli P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 for
offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5)
of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act
has been affirmed.
5. As per prosecution case, dead body of daughter
of the informant was recovered from bushes in decomposed
state. The name of the petitioner / CICL and the co-accused
transpired for being involved in the murder of the daughter of
the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner / CICL was taken into
custody on 01.05.2025. Learned J.J. Board declared the
petitioner / CICL as juvenile on 04.06.2025. Thereafter, the
petitioner / CICL moved for bail before the learned J.J. Board,
Gopalganj and his prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
3/8
27.06.2025 by learned J.J. Board in J.E. No. 244 of 2025, arising
out of Barauli P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner / CICL filed Criminal Appeal No. 20 of
2025 before the Court of learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj (Children Court) seeking bail and
again the prayer for bail was rejected as the learned Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner / CICL.
6. Against dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner /
CICL has approached this Court in the instant criminal revision
petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner / CICL
submits that the petitioner / CICL has been falsely implicated in
this case and he is innocent. The FIR was instituted against
unknown and the name of the CICL transpired in this case
merely on suspicion. Learned counsel further submits that even
in the confessional statement of this CICL, there is no overt act
of the CICL in the whole occurrence, rather the CICL disclosed
that the co-accused Brij Kishore Kumar killed the daughter of
opposite party no. 2 and thereafter informed the CICL on phone
and due to fear, he did not disclose this information to any
person. However, he submits that the learned trial Court did not
consider all these facts and circumstances and refused the bail to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
4/8
the CICL in mechanical manner. Learned counsel further
submits that CICL is a student of Class-11 and his parents
undertake that they will supervise the conduct of the petitioner
and take care of his educational needs and keep him away from
bad influence and anti-social company. Learned counsel next
submits that learned Appellate Court as well as learned J.J.
Board blindly relied upon the SIR and SBR report. Both the
reports are based on presumption and appears to be only a table-
work. There is no substantive material to show the basis of SIR.
Merely mentioning that the petitioner was in contact with the
co-accused Brij Kishore Kumar, who committed murder of the
daughter of the opposite party no. 2 after love affair and to deny
him bail is not proper since the co-accused is the son of the
maternal uncle and it is merely presumption to say that after his
release the petitioner would again come in contact with the co-
accused and it might also cause psychological danger to him
considering his minority as he is stated to be aged about sixteen
years only. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner has
not committed any offence and is innocent and his career would
be jeopardized if he is not released on bail.
8. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
5/8
submits that the SIR and SBR are against the release of
petitioner on bail.
9. Heard the rival submissions advanced by the
parties and perused the materials available on record.
10. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides as under:
“Section 12 – Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
1) When any person, who is apparently a
child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or
non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by
the police or appears or brought before a Board,
such person shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in
force, be released on bail with or without surety or
placed under the supervision of a probation officer
or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so
released if there appears reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the persons release wold
defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record
the reason for denying the bail and circumstances
that led to such a decision.
2) When such person having been
apprehended is not released on bail under sub-
section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police
station, such officer shall cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home [or a place of
safety, as the case may be] in such manner as may
be prescribed until the person can be brought before
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
6/8
a Board.
3) When such person is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an
order sending him to an observation home or a
place of safety, as the case may be, for such period
during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the
person, as may be specified in the order.
4) When a child in conflict with law is unable
to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven
days of the order, such child shall be produced
before the Board for modification of the conditions
of bail.”
11. The aforesaid provision mandates grant of bail
to a CICL except for certain contingencies. The proviso to
Section 12 provides that the child in conflict with law will not
be released on bail if there was apprehension of him coming into
association with known criminal elements or it might result in
moral, physical or psychological danger or it might defeat the
ends of justice. In the present case, it appears the learned
Appellate Court erred on the point while considering the SIR
and SBR of the CICL merely because the CICL was earlier in
contact with co-accused is no ground for presuming that he will
again come in contact with the co-accused after his release.
However, there is no material to show that there was moral,
physical or psychological danger to the CICL if he is released on
bail. Further, when the case against the CICL is based on
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
7/8
completely vague grounds, I fail to understand how it would
defeat the ends of justice if he is allowed on bail.
12. Moreover, the purpose of the J.J. Act is
reformation of the CICL and not to penalise him. Further,
considering the fact that there is no substantive material against
the CICL and his custody is based merely on vague and
unsubstantiated material.
13. Having regard to all these facts and
circumstances, the order of the Appellate Court dated
18.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2025 could not
be sustained and hence the same is set aside. Subsequently, the
order of the learned J.J. Board in J.E. No. 244 of 2025, arising
out of Barauli P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 is also set aside.
14. Let the petitioner, a child in conflict with law,
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, Gopalganj / concerned Court in connection with J.E. No.
244 of 2025, arising out of Barauli P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be the parents of the
petitioner and the other bailor will also be relative of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.982 of 2025 dt.22-06-2026
8/8
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.
15. Accordingly, the present revision petition is
allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 23.06.2026
Transmission Date 23.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.