C.C.L. Under The Natural Guardianship Of Ramesh Yadav @ Matuk Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant.

The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the judgment/order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara, in JJB Case No. 175 of 2025, arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025 registered under Section 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, refusing prayer for bail of the petitioner, has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that the son of the informant was shot dead by the petitioner and other coaccused persons and Ara Town PS Case No. 247 of 2025 was registered under Section 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner was taken into custody on 22.04.2025. The petitioner claimed himself to be juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara determined the age of the petitioner to be 14 years 04 months and 19 days on the date of commission of the offence and declared the petitioner as CICL vide order dated 04.08.2025.

The petitioner filed an application for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara but the Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in in JJB Case No. 175 of 2025.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025 in the court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara. However, the appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court vide order dated 19.01.2026 and upheld the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara.

Being aggrieved by the two concurrent orders of the learned subordinate courts, the petitioner has moved before this Court in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are bad in law as well as on facts. The learned appellate court as well as learned Juvenile Justice Board passed the orders without considering the merits of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to old enmity and conspiracy. The petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner is a student and passed matriculation in 2025. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below overlooked the provisions of law as laid down under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short ‘JJ Act’) and rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner merely on conjecture. The learned subordinate courts, without any supporting materials, came to a finding that releasing the CICL would bring the petitioner into contact with known criminals and the learned appellate court held that the report of the probation officer shows the petitioner would fall in company of anti-social elements and learned subordinate courts also held that releasing the CICL on bail might expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. The bail of the petitioner/CICL could not be denied merely on surmise and conjectures. Under section 12 of the JJ Act, bail is a matter of right of CICL except for conditions in the provision but none of the conditions is made out to deny bail to the petitioner who is in custody since 22.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has antecedent of two cases and he is on bail in both the cases.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned APP for the State vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned appellate court as well as the order passed by the learned JJ Board. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is having antecedent of two cases and it shows he has been in company of known criminals and has got himself involved in cases registered under the Arms Act as well as Section 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS. Learned counsel also submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he may again fall in bad company and there might be moral, physical and psychological danger to the petitioner or that it might result in frustrating the ends of justice.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

Section 12 of the JJ Act, 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.

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 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 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 provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration providing that a CICL shall have the right to re-unite with his family and to be restored to the social, cultural and the economic background that he came from unless such restoration and repatriation is not in the CICL’s best interest.

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 known criminals 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.

Coming back to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is having antecedent of two cases and this fact has been used to hold that there was chance of petitioner again falling in bad company. The petitioner appears to be a motherless child in conflict with law and belongs to a low income group and his father is a laborer. The SIR further shows that the occurrence might have taken place due to absence of proper guidance by the father of the petitioner and his other family members. It has also come in the SIR that the occurrence took place in a love affair but nothing has come on record which may substantiate the belief that release of the petitioner would bring him into contact with any known criminals or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. The findings of the learned subordinate courts is not supported with any cogent material. Merely because the petitioner/CICL has got two criminal antecedents, it cannot be presumed that he has become incorrigible and is not amenable to reformatory steps. 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 it has long been held that institutionalization of a CICL is never in his best interest as it has been felt that keeping a child in home environment expedites his reformation and joining the main stream. Moreover, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure the protection of the best interest of the CICL. The seriousness of allegation or gravity of offence could not be any consideration for refusal of bail to the petitioner. Therefore, taking a holistic view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned subordinate courts committed error while passing their respective orders. Therefore, the orders impugned cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025 by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara in JJB Case No. 175 of 2025, arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.

The petitioner/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, Bhojpur at Ara/concerned court in connection with in JJB Case No. 175 of 2025, arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed.