C.C.L. vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.173 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
C.C.L. Under the Natural Guardianship of Ramesh Yadav @ Matuk Yadav
s/o- Buchan Yadav Resident of Village- Bhaluhipur, P.S.- Ara Town, District-
Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vakil Yadav S/O late Harder Yadav Resident of Village- Bhaluhipur, P.S.-
Ara Town, District- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No. 02 : Mr. Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the
informant.
02. The instant criminal revision application has been
preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the judgment/order
dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025
whereby and whereunder the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara, in JJB Case No.
175 of 2025, arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025
registered under Section 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS and Section

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/9
27 of the Arms Act, 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 son of the informant was shot dead
by the petitioner and other coaccused persons and Ara Town PS
Case No. 247 of 2025 was registered under Section 103(1),
61(2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
04. The petitioner was taken into custody on
22.04.2025. The petitioner claimed himself to be juvenile on the
date of commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board,
Bhojpur at Ara determined the age of the petitioner to be 14
years 04 months and 19 days on the date of commission of the
offence and declared the petitioner as CICL vide order dated
04.08.2025.
05. The petitioner filed an application for grant of bail
before the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara but the Board
rejected his application for bail vide order dated 26.09.2025
passed in in JJB Case No. 175 of 2025.
06. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2025
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at Ara, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025 in the court

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/9
st
of learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara.
However, the appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate
court vide order dated 19.01.2026 and upheld the order dated
26.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhojpur at
Ara.
07. Being aggrieved by the two concurrent orders of
the learned subordinate courts, the petitioner has moved before
this Court in the present revision petition.
08. 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
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to old
enmity and conspiracy. The petitioner was not apprehended
from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered
from his possession. The petitioner is a student and passed
matriculation in 2025. Learned counsel further submits that both
the courts below overlooked the provisions of law as laid down
under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act (in short ‘JJ Act’) and rejected the prayer for bail
of the petitioner merely on conjecture. The learned subordinate

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/9
courts, without any supporting materials, came to a finding that
releasing the CICL would bring the petitioner into contact with
known criminals and the learned appellate court held that the
report of the probation officer shows the petitioner would fall in
company of anti-social elements and learned subordinate courts
also held that releasing the CICL on bail might expose him to
moral, physical, or psychological danger and would defeat the
ends of justice. The bail of the petitioner/CICL could not be
denied merely on surmise and conjectures. Under section 12 of
the JJ Act, bail is a matter of right of CICL except for conditions
in the provision but none of the conditions is made out to deny
bail to the petitioner who is in custody since 22.04.2025.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has
antecedent of two cases and he is on bail in both the cases.
09. 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 no infirmity in
the order of the learned appellate court as well as the order
passed by the learned JJ Board. Learned counsel further submits
that petitioner is having antecedent of two cases and it shows he
has been in company of known criminals and has got himself

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/9
involved in cases registered under the Arms Act as well as
Section 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS. Learned counsel also submits
that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that
he may again fall in bad company and there might be moral,
physical and psychological danger to the petitioner or that it
might result in frustrating the ends of justice.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
11. Section 12 of the JJ Act, 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.
12. 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,

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/9
Section 3(iv) of the Act 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 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 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.
13. 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.
14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/9
petitioner is having antecedent of two cases and this fact has
been used to hold that there was chance of petitioner again
falling in bad company. The petitioner appears to be a
motherless child in conflict with law and belongs to a low
income group and his father is a laborer. The SIR further shows
that the occurrence might have taken place due to absence of
proper guidance by the father of the petitioner and his other
family members. It has also come in the SIR that the occurrence
took place in a love affair but 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. The findings of the learned
subordinate courts is not supported with any cogent material.
Merely because the petitioner/CICL has got two criminal
antecedents, it cannot be presumed that he has become
incorrigible and is not amenable to reformatory steps. Moreover,
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 it has long been held that institutionalization of a CICL is
never in his best interest as it has been felt that keeping a child
in home environment expedites his reformation and joining the

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
8/9
main stream. Moreover, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure the
protection of the best interest of the CICL. The seriousness of
allegation or gravity of offence could not be any consideration
for refusal of bail to the petitioner. Therefore, taking a holistic
view of the matter, 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.
15. Accordingly, the order dated 19.01.2026 passed in
st
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025 by the learned 1 Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara is set aside. Consequently, the
order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Bhojpur at Ara in JJB Case No. 175 of 2025, arising out
of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025 rejecting the prayer for
bail of the petitioner is also set aside.
16. 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, Bhojpur at
Ara/concerned court in connection with in JJB Case No. 175 of
2025, arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025,
subject to the following conditions:

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.173 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
9/9
i) One of the bailors will be the parents of
the petitioner and other bailor will also be
relative of the petitioner having no
criminal antecedent and shall give
undertaking that he/she shall keep proper
care and upkeep of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present
before the Board on each and every date of
trial of the case fixed by the Board.
17. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE -
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026