XX vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Session Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2026, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Patna dated 03.01.2026 passed in JJB Case No. 1129 of 2025, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 1239 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) 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, one Lalan Kumar Gupta submitted fardbeyan on 31.07.2025 to Janipur Police Station alleging that when his wife Sobha Devi returned home at 02:30 PM, she found smoke coming out from her house and the main door was open. When the informant received this information and rushed to his house, he found his daughter Anjali Kumari and son Ansh Kumar lying dead on bed and crowd was assembled. The informant suspects that some unknown person set his house on fire to conceal the heinous act of murder of his children. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner and another co-accused, namely Raushan, were close friends of the deceased and that the deceased used to frequently accompany them on trips. Later, the petitioner confessed to his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. .

The learned J.J. Board, Patna vide order dated 11.12.2025 declared the petitioner to be child in conflict with law (for brevity, “CICL”) and declared the age of the petitioner to be 15 years, 10 months and 21 days on the date of commission of the offence. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the learned J.J. Board, Patna. The Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 03.01.2026 passed in J.J.B. Case No. 1129 of 2025.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Patna, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2026 in the Court of learned District and Additional Session Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Patna. The Appellate Court vide order dated 26.03.2026 dismissed the appeal and has upheld the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Patna.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2026 and order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Patna, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition before this Court.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner / CICL submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned senior counsel further submits that orders of the learned subordinate Courts are not sustainable. Learned senior counsel further submits that CICL is entitled to be granted bail irrespective of the nature of offence committed by him. The bail could be denied only 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. Learned senior counsel further submits that the purpose of J.J. Act is to reform a CICL and not to penalize him. Learned senior counsel also submits that the 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 refusal could only be under the exceptions under the proviso of the said provision, but none of the conditions are present in the instant case of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that the father of the petitioner undertakes to take care of him and further undertakes that he would not allow him to come in contact with bad company. Learned senior counsel further submits that keeping the petitioner in protective custody would not serve any useful purpose and it would not be for betterment of the petitioner or his moral, physical or psychological well-being. Learned senior counsel lastly submits that petitioner is having clean antecedent and is in observation home / jail custody since 02.08.2025.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL and submits that the petitioner was in close touch with the deceased girl and used to frequent her house, but later on the deceased blocked him on Instagram and stopped talking with him. The villagers have also informed that the petitioner is a delinquent and spends most of the time with friends. Learned APP further 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 APP further submits that returning the petitioner to his family and restoring his family life could not be in his best interest and keeping him in the observation home might protect the petitioner from coming in contact with bad company.

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

Section 12 of the 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, I do not find any material on record to show that the petitioner / CICL will come into contact with any known criminal or that the petitioner is having no guardianship. 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 order of the Appellate Court dated 26.03.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Session Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Patna, in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2026 is set aside. Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Patna in JJB Case No. 1129 of 2025, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 1239 of 2025 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. 1129 of 2025, arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No. 1239 of 2025, 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.