X vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 25-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Patna, in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2026, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Patna dated 02.04.2026 passed in JJB Case No. 27 of 2026, arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b)(c) and 22(ii)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act has been affirmed.

Briefly stated, fact of the case are that during special drive and vehicle checking, information was received about a boy selling brown sugar like intoxicant. A raid was conducted and co-accused Nirad Kumar was apprehended. From his search, recovery of 20 grams of brown sugar like substance was made. Thereafter, at the instance of the co-accused Nirad Kumar, Sonu Kumar and this petitioner were apprehended. Further recovery of 42 grams of the contraband was made from this petitioner along with the motorcycle. The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2026 and he claimed juvenility. The learned J.J. Board vide order dated 06.03.2026, declared the petitioner to be a child in conflict with law (In short, “CICL”). Thereafter, the petitioner moved for bail before the learned J.J. Board, Patna, but his prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 02.04.2026. The appeal against this order vide Cr. Appeal No. 64 of 2026, was also rejected by the learned District and additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Patna vide order dated 19.06.2026.

Being aggrieved by the orders dated 19.06.2026 and 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Court and learned J.J. Board respectively, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner / CICL submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The grant of bail to the petitioner could be refused only on the ground that any of the conditions mentioned in the proviso of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act of 2015”) are present. But nothing has come on record to show any material that the release of the petitioner would bring him in association with known criminals or he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or grant of bail would defeat the ends of justice. But none of the conditions are present against this petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused persons Sonu Kumar and Nirad Kumar have been granted bail vide orders dated 16.03.2026 and 13.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16539 of 2026 and Cr. Misc. No. 16406 of 2026 respectively and the case of the petitioner is on much better footing.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL and submits that the petitioner was caught red handed carrying 42 grams of heroin like substance.

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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 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.

Having regard to the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 3 of the Act of 2015, it is much more apparent that the provision under the Act of 2015 are not retributive, but rather reformative. The act of 2015 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the child and with this paramount consideration, the facts are to be sifted. The learned subordinate Courts have not discussed the reasons for arriving at their decisions, rather it appears that the prayer for bail was rejected in routine manner by the learned J.J. Board, Patna and the learned Appellate Court also refused to allow bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that father of the petitioner is his natural guardian and is ready to keep the petitioner and he undertakes that he will not allow the petitioner to fall into bad company or company of anti-social elements.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2026 is set aside. Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Patna dated 02.04.2026 passed in JJB Case No. 27 of 2026, arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026 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, Patna / concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 27 of 2026, arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026, 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.