REDACTED vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.439 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2025 Thana- RAGHUNATHPUR District- Siwan
======================================================
XXX son of YYY Resident Of Village -Kajrasan P.s. -Raghunathpur Dist-
Siwan Under Guardianship Of His Monther Asha Devi Aged About 45 Years
Wife Of Pramod Singh Resident Of Village -Kajrasan P.s.- Raghunathpur,
Dist- Siwan
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Krishna Prasad Soni Son of Late Ram narayan Prasad Resident of village-
Tari, PS- Raghunathpur, Dist- Siwan.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
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.
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.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/9
Case No. 293 of 2025 for offence punishable under Section
310(2), refusing prayer for bail, has been affirmed.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/9
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.
6. 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.
7. 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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/9
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.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/9
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.
8. 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.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the
record.
10. 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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/9
defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the
bail could not be denied to a CICL.
11. 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.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/9
12. 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.
13. 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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
8/9
the learned subordinate courts committed error while passing
their respective orders. Therefore, the orders impugned cannot
be sustained
14. 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.
15. 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:
(i) One of the bailors will be the parents of the
petitioner and the 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.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.439 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
9/9
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the
Board on each and every date of trial of the case fixed by the
Board.
16. Accordingly, the present revision petition is
allowed.
17. The office is directed to send back the LCR to
the court concerned forthwith, if any.


(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date 03.09.2026