X vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 01-09-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the OP No. 2 as well as learned APP for the State.

The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 38 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra dated 07.05.2025 passed in JJB Case No. 1194 of 2024, arising out of Sonpur P.S. Case No. 804 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 61(2), 111 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, refusing prayer for bail, has been affirmed.

Briefly stated facts of the case as it appears from record, are that, the OP No. 2 lodged a case vide Sonpur P.S. Case No. 804 of 2024 under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 alleging that on 25.09.2024 at about 02:00 PM, the son of OP No. 2 left his home after receiving a phone call, but he did not return. Thereafter, at about 09:00 PM, the OP No. 2 again talked with him and during the call, his son told him that he would return in an hour, but afterwards he became traceless. During investigation, the dead body of the son of the O.P. No. 2 was found near a river and the name of the petitioner transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused persons. Later on, vide order dated 30.09.2024, Sections 103 (1), 61(2), 111, 3(5) B.N.S. were added.

The learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra declared the petitioner to be child in conflict with law (for brevity, “CICL”) vide order dated 04.02.2025. The Medical Board as per report dated 18.12.2024 has assessed the age of the CICL to be below 17 years. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra. The Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in J.J.B. Case No. 1194 of 2024.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra, the petitioner preferred Cr. Juvenile Appeal No. 38 of 2025 in the Court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.03.2026 dismissed the appeal and has upheld the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Juvenile Appeal No. 38 of 2025 and order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner / CICL submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that both the learned Courts below acted in mechanical manner and have not taken to consideration the mandate of law. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused, but no specific role has been attributed to him. The learned Courts below failed to consider the fact that petitioner was not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his person or possession, so his freedom would not defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grant of bail is a rule under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act of 2015”) and the CICL is entitled to be granted bail irrespective of the nature of offence committed by him. The bail could only be denied on the ground that his release would likely to bring him under influence of any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. The learned Courts below have passed the orders without recording any reason that the release of the CICL is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger and that for his proper physical and mental well-being he needs to be enlarged on bail as his continuous custody would be detrimental to his physical and mental development. Learned counsel further submits that the purpose of the Act of 2015 is to reform a CICL and not to penalize him. Learned counsel further submits that the father of the CICL undertakes to take care of him and further undertakes that he would not allow him to fall into bad company. Learned counsel further submits that a juvenile co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Cr. Revision No. 693 of 2025 and the case of the petitioner stands on better footing. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 30.09.2024.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the OP No. 2 vehemently oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL. Learned counsel for the OP No. 2 submits that there is no infirmity in the orders of the learned Courts below and the 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 counsel for the OP No. 2 further submits that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent to his discredit and his SIR and SBR does not permit him to be enlarged on bail and grant of bail to the CICL would not be in his best interests.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record.

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.

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 Section 74 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.

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

Coming back of the facts of the present case and from perusal of SIR/SBR, I do not find any chance of petitioner / CICL coming into contact with any known criminal or that the petitioner is having no guardianship. Furthermore, merely because the petitioner / CICL has got one criminal antecedent, it cannot be presumed that he has become incorrigible and is not amenable to reformatory steps. 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 allow to develop the mental and physical well being of the child and psychologically make him a good citizen. This is possible only under the guardianship of the parents and other family members. Since the condition mentioned in Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for denial of bail to the petitioner is not present in the instant case, 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 judgment of the Appellate Court dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 38 of 2025 is set aside. Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra in JJB Case No. 1194 of 2024, arising out of Sonpur P.S. Case No. 804 of 2024 is also set aside.

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, Saran at Chapra / concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 1194 of 2024, arising out of Sonpur P.S. Case No. 804 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed.

The office is directed to send back the LCR to the court concerned forthwith, if any.