Child in Conflict with Law (CLCL) XXYY vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2289 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2026 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas
======================================================
Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) XXYY
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
2. Sadina Khatoon, W/o Late Sadaruddin Khan, R/o Village – Baradih, P.S.
Agarer, District - Rohtas
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Syed Alamdar Hussain, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Shahsi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
Ms. Nandani Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-09-2026
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the impugned order dated 09.06.2026, passed by learned
Children Court-cum-1st District and Additional Sessions Judge,
Rohtas at Sasaram in G.R. No. 05 of 2026, arising out of
Sasaram (Muffassil) P.S. Case No. 102 of 2026, registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of
B.N.S., 2023, whereby learned Children Court has rejected the
bail application of the appellant filed under Section 12 of the J.J.
Act, holding as follows :
“After giving due attention to the averments of both
parties, it goes to appear from the record that the F.I.R. has
been registered under section 103(1), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 after murder of the victim Hasan Raja Khan as

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
2/25
discussed above. In the case of such juvenile the provisions of
section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015
come into play wherein and whereunder it has been specified
that it has to be kept in mind that as to whether the release of
such child is likely to bring such person into association with
any known criminal or expose the said person to moral,
physical or psychological danger or the person's release would
defeat the ends of justice, and the court shall record the reasons
for denying the bail and circumstances led to such a decision.
In view of the such provisions the report reduced into writing
by the probation officer, in its social investigation report(SIR)
necessitates this court to tread on. The report as such of dated
21.04.2026 submitted by District Probation Officer, Sasaram,
Rohtas contains that the petitioner is studying in 11th class and
passed the matriculation exam in second division, and he added
that the CICL is under effect of the daredevilness approach and
the applicant is not matured. Which indicates that the release of
such applicant may expose him to the danger as provided in
section 12 of Juvenile Justice(care and protection) Act and
during the course of enquiry, para-14 of the case diary, it
reveals that the recording of CCTV in which the CICL had
been seen dragging the deceased through the street. Taking
note of the material as such and the matter as such this court is
of the view if such a child is left out of the observation he may
go into association of known criminals which may defeat the
ends of justice. Taking the future interest of the child and the
society as well, this court is not of the view to extend the
privileges of bail at this point of time. Accordingly, the prayer
for bail is refused with a direction to in charge of place of
safety to take step for the rehabilitation of the CICL.”
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the written
report filed by one Sadina Khatoon, is that on 24.03.2026, her
victim-son, Hasan Raja Khan @ Aatif Khan was returning from
Sasaram along with his friends. But when he reached near
Muradabad Majar, the appellant along with other six co-accused
were waiting for him to assault. They surrounded the victim and
assaulted him to death by lathi, danda , bricks, iron rod and
gadasa . The friends of the victim were also surrounded and

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
3/25
attempted to be assaulted. However, somehow, they escaped.
But their motorcycle was damaged by the assailants. The
incident was informed to the informant by the friends of the
victim-son and the villagers and the informant reached the place
of occurrence and identified the dead body of her son in the
hospital. It is also alleged that even previously, the assailants
had attempted to assault her victim-son.
Submissions of the parties.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. Substantiating his submission, learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the informant, who is mother of
the alleged victim, is not an eye-witness to the alleged
occurrence and her FIR is based only on hearsay from the
friends of the victim-son and some villagers.
5. He further submits that the record of CCTV, as
relied upon by learned Children Court, is still to be tested by the
forensic tools. He further submits that the nature or seriousness
of the alleged offence is not a relevant consideration for refusal

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
4/25
of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act to a juvenile. The benefit
provided under Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally available to
a juvenile who is alleged to have committed heinous offence
and he is aged between 16 and 18 years and he is found to be
adult for the sake of trial by the learned Children Court.
6. He further submits that the grant of bail to a
juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception and bail
can be refused to a juvenile only on three grounds as provided
under proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
7. He further submits that the ends of justice as used
in Juvenile Justice is something different from that of general
criminal justice system. Here if the release of a juvenile on bail
would be against his reformation and rehabilitation of the
accused/appellant, only then that would amount to defeating the
ends of justice. But if release is more facilitative of his
reformation and rehabilitation in his home/family environment
than that of the observation home, grant of bail could be held to
be promoting the interest of justice and not defeating the same.
He also refers to and relies upon the judgment passed by this
Court in XXX Vs. The State of Bihar as reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine Pat 2338.
8. He further submits that the appellant is a student of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
5/25
th
Class XI and his education is being hampered in the
observation home and he has no criminal antecedents except the
present one.
9. He further submits that there is no criminal
antecedent of his mother, though his father is an accused in this
case and he has other six criminal antecedents, out of which in
three cases, he has been acquitted and in another case, charge-
sheet is yet to be submitted. One case is related with Arms Act
connected with the present case in which he is a co-accused and
one latest case is in regard to abetment of suicide of the wife of
the victim of this case at her sasural .
10. He further submits that no arms has been
recovered from the possession of the father of the appellant. He
further submits that all the cases against the father of the
appellant are on account of some land disputes.
11. He also submits that as per the Social
Investigation Report, the appellant belongs to a middle class
family and his father runs a garage to maintain himself and his
family members. He also submits that mother of the appellant is
ready to give any undertaking as per direction of this Court and
ensure that his studies is continued and other development needs
are taken care of.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
6/25
12. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the appellant for bail and defends the
impugned order, whereby regular bail application of the
appellant has been rejected.
13. Learned counsel for the informant, who is
Respondent No. 2 herein, vehemently opposes the prayer of the
appellant for regular bail. However, he has no dispute regarding
the principles as enunciated by this Court in XXX Vs. The State
of Bihar as reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Pat 2338 , as
referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant.
However, he submits that in view of the facts and circumstances
of the case, release of the appellant on bail would defeat the
ends of justice in view of the family environment of the
appellant.
14. Explaining his submission, learned counsel for the
informant submits that except the appellant and his mother, all
other family members of the appellant, including the father,
uncles and cousin, have numerous criminal antecedents. He
again points out that the father of the appellant has seven
criminal antecedents, including the present one, in which he is a
co-accused. The father of the appellant has not got any bail -
anticipatory or regular one in the present case, and other cases

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
7/25
are also very serious in nature.
15. In such situation, the purpose of reformation and
rehabilitation at the home of the appellant is not possible. It
would be better if he remains in the observation home or safety
home and pursues his studies there. He also refers to the Social
Investigation Report, as per which there is negative environment
in the family of the appellant and his family is of dabang nature
and there is lack of proper guidance and moral education in the
family. As per report of the Probation Officer, the appellant
should be kept in the observation home/safety home for his
reformative changes and vocational training, so that he gets self
dependent after release and get re-integrated with the society.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
16. Before I consider the rival submission of the
parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which deals
with bail to the Juvenile. Section 12 of the Act reads as
follows:-
“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged
to be in conflict with law .-(1) When any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable
or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time
being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or
placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
8/25
care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there
appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring that person into association with any known
criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the
ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not
released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge
of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home ¹[or a place of safety, as the
case may be,] in such manner as may be prescribed until the
person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-
section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to
an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be,
for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding
the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the
conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the Board for modification
of the conditions of bail.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
17 . From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it
clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail
provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 or
any other law for time being in force. It further emerges that as
per Section 12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule and
refusal of the same is an exception and Juvenile can be denied
bail only on the following three grounds: (i) if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to
bring that person into association with any known criminal, or,
(ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological
danger, or, (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of
justice.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
9/25
18. Hon’ble Apex Court in Juvenile in Conflict
with Law Vs. State of Rajasthan , as reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 5297 has also held that juvenile in conflict with law
has to be necessarily released on bail unless the proviso is
applicable and there must be clear finding regarding the
applicability of the proviso. The relevant part of judgment reads
as follows:
"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of
Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be
necessarily released on bail with or without surety or
placed under supervision of a probation officer or
under the care of any fit person unless proviso is
applicable.
7. We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the
JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially
the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ
Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of
the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could
not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law.
........................................................................................
9. Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded
a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to
sub-Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the
juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for
last one year.
10. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.
11. We direct that the juvenile in conflict with law shall
be released on bail without surety. However, the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board shall issue
appropriate directions to the jurisdictional Probation
Officer to keep the juvenile under supervision and to
submit periodical reports to the Board about the
conduct of the Juvenile."
(Emphasis supplied)

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
10/25
19. In Re-Exploitation of Children in Orphanages
in the State of T.N. Vs. Union of Indian and Ors. as reported
in (2020) 14 SCC 327 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
bail to a juvenile can be denied only on three grounds as
provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
"7. Sub-section (1) makes it absolutely clear that a
child alleged to be in conflict with law should be
released on bail with or without surety or placed under
the supervision of a probation officer or under the care
of any fit person. The only embargo created is that in
case the release of the child is likely to bring him into
association with known criminals or expose the child
to moral, physical or psychological danger or where
the release of the child would defeat the ends of
justice, then bail can be denied for reasons to be
recorded in writing. Even if bail is not granted, the
child cannot be kept in jail or police lock-up and has to
be kept in an observation home or place of safety."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The High Court of Bombay in XYZ v. State of
Maharashtra , as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2790 has
held that grounds for denial of bail must be based on material.
The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"6. The mandate of the aforesaid provisions requires
that the CCL alleged to have committed a bailable or
non bailable offence and apprehended, shall be release
on bail with or without surety. The proviso to Section
12(1) puts an exception, where there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the release of CCL is likely to
bring him into the association with any known criminal
or exposed him to moral, physical or sociological
danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
It is therefore, evident that the denial of bail to the CCL

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
11/25
shall be for specific reasons akin to above proviso.
………………………………………………………...
9. There is nothing on record to indicate that the CCL
is likely to come in association with the known
criminals or get exposed to moral, physical or
sociological danger or his release would defeat the
ends of justice. In the wake of aforesaid circumstances
the case is made out to allow this Revision Application
and to release the CCL on bail by setting aside the
impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed.
Hence following order:"
(Emphasis supplied)
21. It also emerges that seriousness of the alleged
offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant
considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
Even the child who is 16 years or above 16 years of age and is
alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to
get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no
classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act,
2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section 12 is applicable to all
juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any
nature. (Also refer to Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu Vs. State of
Bihar, 2019 (6) BLJ 2016 ).
22. Karnataka High Court in XXX (accused before
the J.J. Board) Vs. State and Others as reported in
MANU/KA/3957/2024 has also held that Section 12 of the J.J.
Act, 2015 is applicable even to a juvenile who is being tried as
adult by Children Court and bail to him can be denied only on

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
12/25
the grounds as provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"9. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the
time being in force, a child, who is produced before the
Board, shall be released on bail subject to proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is very
clear that even if the child is ordered to be tried as a
adult, as provided under Section 18(3) of the Act of
2015, for the purpose of his bail application, Section
12 of the Act of 2015 would be applicable and his bail
application cannot be considered under the provisions
of Code of Criminal Procedure. As is evident from
Section 12 of the Act of 2015, the only embargo in not
releasing a child on bail is that there appears a
reasonable ground that his release is likely to bring him
into any association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or that release of such a person would defeat the ends
of justice. The three disentitlement categories
contemplated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act
of 2015, would not come in the way of the petitioner's
application being considered under Section 12 of the
Act of 2015 for the following reasons:-
(a) The nature of crime committed by the petitioner is
not likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger; (b) There is no such report
available on record which suggests that the petitioner is
likely to be exposed to moral, physical and
psychological danger; (c) The victim girl and her
parents do not apprehend any danger from the
petitioner and they have appeared before the Special
Court and stated that they have no objection for
enlarging the petitioner on bail."
(Emphasis supplied)
23 . Allahabad High Court in Radhika (Juvenile)
Vs. State of U.P., as reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4911
has also held that under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, nature

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
13/25
and character of the alleged crime is not a relevant consideration
and bail can be denied to a juvenile only on the grounds as
provided in the Proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The
relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"27. It is explicit from the plain reading of Section 12
of the Act that irrespective of nature and character of
the crime, if a ‘child’ brought by the police or appears
before the Board, such child shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or any other law enforced in time, “shall’ be
released on bail with or without surety under the
supervision of Probation Officer or under the care of
any fit person. The word “fit person’ is defined under
section 2(28) of the Act, means any person prepared to
owe responsibility of a child for a specific purpose and
after making due enquiry in this behalf, the Board may
give the custody of child in the hand of “fit person’.
Thus, it is clear that the child delinquent has got a right
to be released on bail with or without surety and the
gravity, nature and depth of the offence shall not come
into the way.
28. However, in the proviso of Section 12(1) of the
Act, there are three embargoes/riders; namely; (a) if
there appears reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into association
with any known criminal or; (b) expose that person as
moral, physical or psychological danger or; (c) the
person's release would defeat the ends of justice, the
Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances lead to such a decision.
29. From the plain reading of the above proviso, it has
been clearly borne out that (1) the juvenile delinquent
has got unqualified right to seek bail irrespective of the
gravity, depth and seriousness of the offence; (2) his
bail could be denied strictly on the three grounds, as
mentioned under the proviso of Section 12 of the Act
by the Board”.
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Punjab and Haryana High Court has also
held in Vishvas vs. State of Punjab as reported in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
14/25
MANU/PH/0067/2021 that under Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015,
the nature and gravity of the alleged offence is not relevant
while considering bail application to a juvenile. Bail can be
denied to a juvenile under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 only
on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act and there must be material on record in support of the
grounds. It has also held that ‘ ends of justice being defeated ’
has to be considered in the context of the welfare of the
juvenile. The relevant part of judgment reads as follows:
"7. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12
of the J.J. Act, it appears that the intention of the
legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of
the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to have
been committed by him, and bail can be declined only
in such cases where reasonable grounds are there for
believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile
into association of any known criminal or expose him
to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice. Meaning
thereby, as per aforesaid provision, a juvenile can be
denied the concession of bail, if any of the three
contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the J.J.
Act is available. Similar view was observed in cases
Manoj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 2004(2) RCC 995,
Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/1042/2005
: 2006(1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan
MANU/RH/0549/2005 : 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 530
and Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh v. State of
Rajasthan MANU/RH/1038/2005 : 2005(4) Crimes
649.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has also
not pointed out any material available on record to
show that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the petitioner is likely to come into the association
of any known criminal if released on bail, or his
release will expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger. The order passed is mechanical
and without adhering to the provisions of Section 12(1)

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
15/25
of the J.J. Act, which specifies that 'the Board shall
record the reasons for denying the bail and
circumstances that led to such a decision.'
………………………………………………………...
12. The Supreme Court and various High Courts, time
and again have reiterated the well settled position of
law, that gravity of offence is immaterial in deciding
the bail application. Bail of a child in conflict with law
cannot be rejected in a routine manner and if the bail is
declined, a reasoned order has to be given by the
Board. A juvenile has to be released on bail
mandatorily unless and until the exceptions carved out
in proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015 itself
are made out. The exceptions are noted being:-
a) a reasonable ground for believing that the release is
likely to bring the juvenile into association with any
known criminal;
b) his release is likely to expose him to any moral,
physical or psychological danger; and
c) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
........................................................................................
..................................................
14. The third exception namely 'ends of justice being
defeated' has to be considered in the context of the
welfare of the juvenile, as has been held by the Delhi
High Court in Master Abhishek (Minor) Vs. State
(Delhi) MANU/DE/0445/2005 : 2005 VI AD Delhi 18.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan
High Court in Gau v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 as reported in
SCC OnLine Raj 2526. The relevant part of the judgment reads
as follows :
"7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015
conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to
the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the
offence, alleged to have been committed by him and
bail can be denied only in the case where there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or that his release would defeat
ends of justice.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
16/25
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Here, it would be also pertinent to point out that
the ends of justice as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
J.J. Act is drastically different to one as used in the context of
penal statutes. The ends of justice in the context of any Act is
ascertained on the basis of the purpose and object of that Act
and the objective of the J.J. Act is to reform and rehabilitate the
juveniles and not to punish them, as emerges from the preamble
to the J.J. Act, which reads as follows:
“An Act to consolidate and amend the law
relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict
with law and children in need of care and protection by
catering to their basic needs through proper care,
protection, development, treatment, social reintegration,
by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication
and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and
for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and
institutions and bodies established, hereinunder and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
27 . The purpose and object of the J.J. Act manifests
in Section 3 also of the J.J. Act, providing for general principles
to be followed in the administration of the Act. Section 3 of the
Act reads as follows:
“3. General principles to be followed in administration
of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments,
the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—
………………………………………………………...
(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the
child shall be based on the primary consideration that they

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
17/25
are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to
develop full potential.
……………………………………………………………
(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to
ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any
harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care
and protection system, and thereafter.
(vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised
including those of family and community, for promoting
the well-being, facilitating development of identity and
providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to
reduce vulnerabilities of children and the need for
intervention under this Act.
(viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial
or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes
pertaining to a child.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. High Court of Uttaranchal in X (Juvenile in
conflict with law) Vs. State of Uttarakhand, as reported in
2025 SCC OnLine Utt 157 has also held that the Juvenile
Justice Act is child friendly and all decisions regarding the child
under the Act should be based on primary consideration of the
best interest of the child. It has been also held that any juvenile
in conflict with law is entitled to get released on bail
irrespective of nature of the offence. Bail could be denied to him
only on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12 (1)
of the J.J. Act., 2015. The relevant part of judgment reads as
follows:
8. For a child in conflict with law, every offence is
bailable. The CIL is entitled to be released on bail as
per Section of the 12 Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”),
irrespective of the offence having been classified

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
18/25
bailable or non bailable. The only rider is the proviso
to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The child
may not be released on bail, if there are grounds to
believe that the release is likely to bring that person
into association with any known criminal or expose the
said person to moral, physical or psychological danger
or the release of the person would defeat the ends of
justice.
9. The JJ Act is, in fact, child friendly. The central
theme is that the child interest is supreme. Section 3 of
the JJ Act 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 sub section (v) speaks
of primary responsibility. According to it, “the primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the
child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive
or foster parents, as the case may be”.
........................................................................................
12. Nothing has been shown that if released the CIL
would come into contact with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
29 . The J.J. Act is based on the belief that children are
the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with
law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and
rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish
its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with
law would be self-destructive for the society.
30. As such, if the keeping of the child in custody is
helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only
then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
19/25
ends of justice. (Also refer to Abhishek Vs. State, 205 CriLJ
(NOC) 115 (Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, 2006
CriLJ 4759 ).
31 . It also emerges from Section 3 of the Act that
Reformatory or Observation Home is only one of the measures
contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating
the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in
conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the
best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the
Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of
the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or
foster parents of the child and it has been contemplated that
every child in conflict with law has right to be reunited with his
family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict
with law has been contemplated as the last resort. Such
principles manifest in clauses v, xii and xiii of Section 3 of the
Act which read as follows:
“ 3. General principles to be followed in administration
of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments,
the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while
implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by
the following fundamental principles, namely:—
………………………………………………………...
(v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child
shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster
parents, as the case may be.
………………………………………………………….

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
20/25
(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last
resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step
of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child
in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be re-
united with his family at the earliest and to be restored to
the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was
in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless
such restoration and repatriation is not in his best
interest.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
32 . Hence, under the J.J. Act, 2015, a child in
conflict with law is not expected to be treated as an adult
offender. J.J. Boards/Courts are required to adopt fundamentally
a different approach while dealing with juveniles in conflict
with law. They are expected to deal with such juveniles with all
sensibility and responsibility, keeping in mind the purpose and
object of the J.J. Act to reform and rehabilitate the child, so as to
make him a responsible and productive member of the society.
The society would get ruined if such children are dealt with
punitive approach.
33. Similar view has been taken by this Court in
Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar Case (supra) , Nitish
Kumar Case (supra) , Chandan Kumar Paswan Case (supra),
Rakesh Rai Case (supra) and Avnish Kumar case (supra).
Summary of the Legal Provisions
34. Hence, it is clearly found that notwithstanding
anything contained in the code of criminal procedure or any

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
21/25
other law for time being in force, bail to a juvenile in conflict
with law is governed by Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
35(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable
to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination
of any nature. Even a juvenile, aged between 16 to 18 years and
being accused of heinous offence and being tried by Children
Court, is entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
35(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged
offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12
of the J.J. Act.
35(3). “The ends of justice” as used in the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act is drastically different to one as
used in general criminal jurisprudence. If the detention of the
juvenile at Observation Home or other institutions as
contemplated under the J.J. Act is helpful in protection,
development and rehabilitation of the juvenile, only then it can
be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
35(4). The family of the child in conflict with law is
the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the
J.J.Act. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law is
the last resort and every child in conflict with law has right to be
reunited with his family at the earliest.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
22/25
35(5). Under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail to a
juvenile is a rule and the refusal of the same is an exception and
it can be denied only on the grounds as provided in the proviso
to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015.
35(6). The denial of bail must be reasoned and the
grounds of denial must be based on relevant facts and
circumstances, as emerging from the material on record. Social
Investigation Report is one of the most important such material.
Perusal of such report is mandatory as per Section 15 (2) of the
J.J. Act, 2015. The Board/Court is required to know not only
about the offence committed by the juvenile but even about the
socio-economic conditions/circumstances under which the
offence was committed, so that, appropriate order in regard to
the juvenile in conflict with law could be passed with intent to
reform and rehabilitate the juvenile and reintegrate him with the
mainstream of the society.
35(7). All resources have to be mobilised including
those of the family and the community for reforming and
rehabilitating the juvenile in conflict with law to make him
productive member of the society. (Refer to Section 3 (vii) of
the J.J. Act, 2015.)

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
23/25
Present Case - Consideration
36. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the
Appellant is an accused in a murder case along with other co-
accused including his father and he is found to be aged between
16 and 18 years and he was also found to be matured enough to
understand the nature and consequences of the alleged offence,
and hence, he is being tried by learned Children Court and
during the trial, his regular bail application under Section 12 of
the J.J. Act has been rejected by learned Children Court on the
following grounds:
(i) As per the report of the Probation Officer, the
appellant is under the influence of daredevil approach and he is
not matured,
(ii) The release of the appellant may expose him to
danger as provided in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act,
(iii) As per the CCTV report as recorded in the case
diary, the appellant was seen dragging the deceased through the
street,
(iv) The appellant may go into association of known
criminals which may defeat the ends of justice,
(v) In the interest of the appellant and the society as
well, the Court was against the view to extend the privilege of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
24/25
bail at this point of time to the appellant.
37 . From the submissions of both the parties and
perusal of records, it clearly transpires that the Appellant and his
mother have no criminal antecedents. However, from the record,
it does not transpire that the mother of the Appellant is
financially independent and capable to provide separate and
independent conducive environment and necessary facilities to
the Appellant for his proper reformation, development and
rehabilitation.
38 . Moreover, it transpires that the father of the
Appellant has six criminal antecedents including the present
case of murder. It is also pertinent to note that till date, no bail -
anticipatory or regular one has been granted to him in the
present case. In other words, any time, the father of the
Appellant may go into custody in the present case of murder.
39 . It also transpires that other close family members
of the Appellant- uncles and cousins have also got criminal
antecedents and as per the Social Investigation Report, there is
negative environment in the family of the Appellant and the
family of the Appellant is also of domineering/overbearing
( dabang) nature.
40 . In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2289 of 2026 dt.07-09-2026
25/25
that the release of the Appellant on regular bail to join his family
would adversely affect his reformatory and developmental
process, and hence, his release on bail would defeat the ends of
justice. It would be better if the Appellant continues in the
observation home for his reformatory and rehabilitative
measures. It goes without saying that under such facts and
circumstances, the application of the Juvenile/Appellant under
Section 12 of the J.J. Act is liable to be rejected. Hence, I do not
find any reason to interfere in the impugned order though
learned Children Court has not explained the grounds for the
rejection of the regular bail to the Appellant properly.
41 . The present Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
42 . The concerned authorities of the observation home
are directed to provide the Appellant appropriate educational
and vocational opportunities and required counseling in
consonance with the J.J. Act and the rules made thereunder.
43 . Learned Children Court is also requested to
expedite the trial of the Appellant.


(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Shoaib/Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR
A.F.R.
CAV DATE 10.08.2026.
Uploading Date 07.09.2026
Transmission Date 07.09.2026