XX vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

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

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 (for brevity, “the Act of 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 X1.

Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.

The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Patna dated 25.09.2025 passed in JJB Case No. 715 of 2025, arising out of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 485 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 61(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act have been affirmed.

The brief facts of the case are that the informant Mamta Devi instituted Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 485 of 2025 for murder of her husband and she named five persons with further allegation that they got her husband murdered by employing a shooter. The matter was investigated and the name of the petitioner transpired for being the person who shot at the husband of the informant. The petitioner was taken into custody on 21.06.2025. The petitioner claimed juvenility and vide order dated 16.09.2025, the learned J.J. Board, Patna in JJB Case No. 715 of 2025 declared the petitioner to be CICL and declared his age to be fourteen years, ten months and one day. The petitioner moved for bail before the learned J.J. Board, Patna and vide order dated 25.09.2025, the learned J.J. Board rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal vide Cr. Appeal No. 120 of 2025 before the Court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna, but again, without any favourable order, the Appellate Court also rejected the appeal while affirming the order of the learned J.J. Board, Patna.

Being aggrieved by the orders dated 22.11.2025 and 25.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 120 of 2025 and JJ Board, Patna in JJB Case No. 715 of 2025 respectively, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner / CICL submits that the impugned orders of the learned subordinate Courts are not sustainable. The learned subordinate Courts considered the case of the petitioner like he were a hardened criminal and not in the light of provision under Section 12 of the act of 2015. Learned Courts failed to consider that there was no cogent material against the petitioner. Moreover, gravity of offence is immaterial for consideration of prayer for bail of a CICL. Learned counsel also submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is no danger of moral, physical or psychological harm to the petitioner or that his release would defeat the ends of justice or he would come in contact with known criminals. The mother of the petitioner undertakes to take proper care of the petitioner and she further undertakes that she would not allow the petitioner to fall in bad company. There is no probability that the petitioner would come into association with any known criminal or would be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. The petitioner is having clean antecedent.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL and submits that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court have observed that the petitioner came into bad company and indulged in such type of crime and there is exposure to physical and psychological danger to the petitioner if he is released on bail and this release would not even be in the best interest of the petitioner.

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.

From the facts of the case it appears that the rejection of the prayer of bail of the petitioner by subordinate Courts is mainly on the ground that father of the petitioner committed suicide in the year 2010 and there was lack of guardianship in the family and the petitioner was brought up in the care of his maternal grand-parents and thus, he came into contact with the main conspirator who took advantage of his condition and made him murder the husband of the informant. Considering the bad company and lack of discipline and lack of control of family, the learned subordinate Courts refused to allow the petitioner to be released on bail. However, considering the mandate of law and the paramount interest of the child, institutionalization of the child is not favourable to his reformation and to bring him to the mainstream. The same could be achieved only by keeping the child at a place where there would be scope for development of his personality. In the present case, except for making observation about the petitioner falling in bad company or being exposed to moral physical or psychological danger, no substantive material has brought on record to show the basis of such apprehension. The petitioner might be a father-less child, but it could not be said that being a father-less child there was lack of control over petitioner and he would fall in bad company.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court dated 22.11.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna, in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2025 is set aside. Subsequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Patna in JJB Case No. 715 of 2025, dated 25.09.2025, arising out of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 485 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. 715 of 2025, arising out of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 485 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.