XXX XXX YYY YYY Child In Conflict With Law Through His Mother Namely YYY YYY vs The State Of Bihar & Anr.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 02.

The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 42 of 2025 whereby the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra, in JJB Case No. 134 of 2025, arising out of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 936 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 447, 341, 324, 307, 302/34 of the IPC, refusing prayer for bail of the petitioner, has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

03 Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that the opposite party no. 2 instituted Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 936 of 2023 under Section /447, 341, 324, 307, 302/34 of the IPC against the petitioner and others. Allegation against the petitioner is for assaulting the mother of the informant and other victims with stick and rod. The allegation of stabbing the brother of the informant is against coaccused Aman Kumar and Anil Kumar Thakur. The brother of the informant succumbed to his injuries.

The petitioner surrendered on 11.02.2025. The petitioner claimed himself to be juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra declared the petitioner as CICL vide order dated 27.06.2025.

The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra. The Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in JJB Case No. 134 of 2025, arising out of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 936 of 2023.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 42/2025 in the court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra. The appellate court, vide order dated 21.01.2026 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra.

Being aggrieved by the two concurrent orders of the learned subordinate courts, the petitioner has moved before this Court in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are bad in law as well as on facts. The learned appellate court as well as learned Juvenile Justice Board passed the orders without considering the merits of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation of stabbing the brother of the informant is specific against coaccused Aman Kumar and Anil Kumar Thakur and allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus. It also apparent from the FIR that both the parties are pattidar. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below overlooked the provisions of law as laid down under Section 12 of the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short ‘JJ Act’). Learned counsel further submits that the seriousness of allegation or gravity of offence could not be any consideration for refusal of bail to the petitioner. Both the courts below failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.02.2025 and he has no criminal antecedent and keeping him in custody will ruin his career. The learned courts below rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner as the SIR report mentions that there is requirement to keep the petitioner in safety as there is threat to the life of the petitioner and his parents, if he is released. The learned subordinate courts, without any supporting materials, came to a finding that releasing the CICL on bail might expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and held that his return to the family may lead to exposure to potential risk and harm. Thus, learned counsel submits that there is no material to keep the petitioner in observation home and the orders impugned are not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned APP for the State vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the mother of the informant and other victims and the family members of the petitioner are also accused in this case. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he might commit the same offence again.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

Section 12 of the JJ Act 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 Act of 2015 provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration providing that a CICL shall have the right to re-unite with his family and to be restored to the social, cultural and the economic background that he came from unless such restoration and repatriation 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 known criminals 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 to the facts of the present case, from the SIR and the SBR, I do not find any material to substantiate petitioner coming into contact with any known criminals, if released on bail or the petitioner is having no guardianship. The SIR shows that there is threatening being given to the petitioner and family members and it would be safe to keep the petitioner in custody. But, 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. The findings of the learned subordinate courts is not supported with any cogent material and nothing has come on record which may substantiate the belief that release of the petitioner would bring him into contact with any known criminals or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. Since the condition mentioned in Section 12 of the JJ Act 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 dated 21.01.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra, in JJB Case No. 134 of 2025, arising out of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 936 of 2023 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.

The petitioner/ CICL, is directed to 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, Saran at Chapra/concerned court in connection with JJB Case No. 134 of 2025, arising out of Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 936 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:

Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed.

Office is directed to return the Lower Court Record, if any.