XXX vs The State of Bihar & Anr.

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

The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Children Court-cum-1^st District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2026, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas dated 19.01.2026 passed in JJB Case No. 651 of 2025, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, refusing prayer for bail, has been affirmed.

Briefly stated facts of the case as it appears from the record, are that the OP No. 2 instituted Dinara P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act alleging that on 20.04.2025 at about 11 PM, while a marriage ceremony was taking place besides the house of the OP No. 2, he received information that his brother was shot dead. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of his brother with pellet injury in his stomach. The OP No. 2 suspected that the petitioner along with his father has murdered his brother.

The petitioner surrendered in the Court of learned J.J. Board, Rohtas at Sasaram on 21.11.2025. The J.J. Board, Rohtas at Sasaram declared the petitioner to be child in conflict with law (for brevity, “CICL”) and declared the age of the petitioner to be 16 years, 4 months and 18 days on the date of commission of the offence. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas. The Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 19.01.2026 passed in J.J.B. Case No. 651 of 2025.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2026 in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children Court-cum-1^st District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. The Appellate Court vide order dated 23.02.2026 dismissed the appeal and has upheld the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2026 and order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board Rohtas in J.J.B. Case No. 651 of 2025, 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 merely on the basis of suspicion. There is inordinate delay of 24 hours in filing of the FIR. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and the case is based on incomplete circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the orders of the learned JJ Board, Rohtas and the Appellate Court are not sustainable. Learned subordinate Courts failed to consider that there was no cogent material against the petitioner in the Social Investigation Report. Learned counsel also submits that if the CICL 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 bad company or known criminals. Learned counsel also submits that the purpose of J.J. Act is reforming a CICL and not to penalize him. Learned counsel further submits that the mother of the petitioner / CICL undertakes to look after him under her guardianship and she will not let him come in contact with bad company. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner / CICL carries three criminal antecedent and he is on bail in all the said cases.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner / CICL has three criminal antecedents to his discredit which reflects his repeated involvements in criminal cases. Learned counsel further submits that there is no infirmity in the orders of the learned J.J. Board and the learned Appellate Court. The learned subordinate Courts have passed the orders after due consideration of the facts and law involved in the case.

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

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “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 there is material on record to show that petitioner / CICL will come into contact with any known criminal or that the petitioner is having no guardianship. The SIR rather shows that the petitioner / CICL is a student and his friends are also from the educated background. Furthermore, merely because the petitioner/CICL has got three criminal antecedents, 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 order of the Appellate Court dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Children Court-cum-1^st District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2026 is set aside. Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas in JJB Case No. 651 of 2025, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 167 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, Rohtas / concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 651 of 2025, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 167 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.