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. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of OP No. 2.

The instant criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Children Judge-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2026, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan dated 19.01.2026 passed in JJB Case No. 1091 of 2025, arising out of Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025 for offence punishable under Section 310(2), refusing prayer for bail, has been affirmed.

Briefly stated facts of the case as it appears from record, are that, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the O.P. No.2, Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025 under Sections 310 (2) BNS has been lodged, in which, he alleged that on 27.11.2025 at about 12 Noon, four miscreants, who were variously armed, entered his jewelry shop and on the point of fire-arms, asked him to hand over the cash and jewelry. They took away cash of Rs. 20,000/- and various gold and silver ornaments and also fired shots. During investigation, the name of the petitioner transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person.

The J.J. Board, Siwan declared the petitioner to be child in conflict with law (for brevity, “CICL”) vide order dated 12.12.2025 and declared the age of the petitioner to be 17 years, 3 months and 4 days on the date of commission of the offence. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the learned J.J. Board, Siwan. The Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 19.01.2026 passed in J.J.B. Case No. 1091 of 2025.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Siwan, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2026 in the Court of learned Children Judge-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan. The Appellate Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 dismissed the appeal and has upheld the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Siwan.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2026 and order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Siwan, 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. The petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor anything has been recovered from his conscious possession. The name of the petitioner surfaced in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, Vikki Baitha, who is on inimical terms with the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no cogent material on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further 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 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. The learned Subordinate Courts have observed that petitioner indulged in the alleged crime after coming into contact with bad company. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is having clean antecedent and there is no previous history of petitioner indulging in any crime. Learned counsel further submits that the purpose of J.J. Act is to reform a CICL and not to penalize him. Learned counsel further submits that grant of bail is a rule under Section 12 of the J.J. Act 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 counsel further submits that the mother of the petitioner, namely Asha Devi undertakes that she would take care of him and further undertakes that she would not allow him to fall in bad company. Therefore, the impugned orders of the learned Appellate Court as well as learned J.J. Board are not sustainable and need to be set aside allowing the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner is in remand home since 29.11.2025.

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL and 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 it has come in the SIR that the reasons for the petitioner to be indulged in the said crime are lack of parental supervision and the influence of bad company and releasing the petitioner on bail may lead to exposure to potential risk and harm.

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, I do not find there is 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 18.03.2026 passed by the learned Children Judge-cum-District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2026 is set aside. Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Siwan in JJB Case No. 1091 of 2025, arising out of Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 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, Siwan / concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 1091 of 2025, arising out of Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 293 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.