XXX (Priyanshu Kumar @ Murari Kumar) vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3153 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL REVISION No.406 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2024 Thana- Refinery District- Begusarai
======================================================
XXX (Real name withheld)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. YYY (Real name withheld)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Shanka Ray, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-05-2026
Introduction
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the impugned order dated 17.02.2025, passed by learned
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge
Juvenile Court, Begusarai in J.J.C.P. No. 17 of 2024, arising out
of Refinery P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024, whereby regular bail
application of the appellant has been rejected, holding that he is
physically well and mentally mature to understand the nature and
consequences of the alleged offence and he has committed
offence on account of lack of interest in studies, bad company,
lack of discipline and also lack of supervision and control of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
2/23
family and other factors, and if the appellant is released on bail,
there is possibility of moral, physical and psychological danger
to him.
Factual Background
2. Refinery P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024 was registered
on the written report of brother of the alleged victim under
Section 65(1) of B.N.S. and Sections 4, 8, 14 and 15 of POCSO
Act, alleging commission of rape upon her sister and making the
video of the alleged offence viral.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 65(1)
of B.N.S. and Sections 4, 8, 14 and 15 of POCSO Act and on
plea taken by the appellant regarding his juvenility, the matter
was sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai and as per
assessment of the age of the appellant, he was found to be
juvenile and in view of heinous nature of the alleged offence, his
preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the J.J. Act was
again conducted by learned J.J. Board and the appellant was
found to mature enough to understand the nature and
consequence of the alleged offence and hence, the matter was
sent to learned Children Court and vide impugned order, learned
Children Court rejected the regular bail application of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
3/23
appellant. Hence, the appellant is before this Court.
4. During trial, so far five witnesses have been
examined, including the father and mother of the victim,
supporting the prosecution case against the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the Parties
5. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
APP for the State as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.
2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
He further submits that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law is a
rule and denial of the same is an exception and bail can be
denied to a juvenile only on limited grounds, as provided in the
proviso to Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015. But by the impugned
order, learned Children Court has not made out any ground as
provided in the proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act to deny the
bail to the appellant. Learned Children Court has erroneously
rejected the regular bail application of the appellant on irrelevant
grounds and without any basis.
7. He further submits that as per Social Investigation
Report of the appellant, neither he, nor his parents have any
criminal antecedents. The father of the appellant is a driver and

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
4/23
his mother is a housewife. The brother and sisters of the
appellant are pursuing their studies. The conduct of the appellant
towards his family members is cordial and he is religious in
nature. However, he belongs to a poor family having small
house.
th
8. As per further report, the appellant is 8 class pass
and he is a neighbor of the family of the victim and he is
associated with the family of the victim in running some
transport business. It is also reported that the offence has been
committed by the appellant on account of lack of moral
education, discipline, supervision of the family and seeing
pornography on mobile by the appellant.
9. He further submits that the appellant is in judicial
custody since 16.07.2024.
10. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for Respondent No. 2/informant submit that the trial is at
the fag end, because out of 11 prosecution witnesses, five
witnesses have been already examined and trial is likely to be
concluded within short time. They also submit that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, because the alleged
offence is serious in nature and the juvenile is mature enough to
understand the nature and consequence of the alleged offence.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
5/23
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J.J. Act, 2015.
11. 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
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)
12 . From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it
clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
6/23
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.
13. 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
7/23
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)
14. 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)
15. The High Court of Bombay in XYZ v. State of

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
8/23
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
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)
16. 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
9/23
nature. (Also refer to Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu Vs. State of
Bihar, 2019 (6) BLJ 2016 ).
17. 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
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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
10/23
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)
18 . 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 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
11/23
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)
19. Punjab and Haryana High Court has also held in
Vishvas vs. State of Punjab as reported in
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.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
12/23
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) 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)
20. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High
Court in Gau v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 as reported in SCC

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
13/23
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.
(Emphasis supplied)
21. 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)
22 . The purpose and object of the J.J. Act manifests

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
14/23
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
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)
23. 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
15/23
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
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)
24 . 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
16/23
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.
25. 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
ends of justice. (Also refer to Abhishek Vs. State, 205 CriLJ
(NOC) 115 (Delhi) and Manoj Vs. State (NCT of Delhi, 2006
CriLJ 4759 ).
26 . 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
17/23
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.
………………………………………………………….
(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)
27 . 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.
28. Similar view has been taken by this Court in

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
18/23
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
29. Hence, it is clearly found that notwithstanding
anything contained in the code of criminal procedure or any
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.
29(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.
29(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged
offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12
of the J.J. Act.
29(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

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
19/23
of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
29(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.
29(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.
29(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.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
20/23
29(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.)
Present Case
30. Coming to the case on hand, I find that the
appellant is alleged to have committed rape upon the minor
victim and during trial, out of 11 prosecution witnesses, five
witnesses have been already examined, including the parents of
the victim and they have supported the prosecution case against
the appellant.
31. I further find that learned Children Court has
rejected the regular bail application of the appellant on the
ground that the appellant is physically well and mentally mature
enough to understand the nature and consequence of the alleged
offence and he has committed offence on account of lack of
interest in education, bad company, lack of discipline, control
and supervision of the family and other external reasons. It has
been also held by learned Children Court that there may be
moral, physical and psychological danger to the appellant, if he
is released on bail.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
21/23
32. However, on scrutiny of the material on record, I
find that some of the grounds for rejection of the regular bail
application of the appellant is irrelevant and not coming within
the scope of the proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act and some of
the grounds are without any basis, as per the material on record.
There is no material on record to show that release of the
appellant on bail would expose the appellant to moral, physical
and psychological danger. I find that neither the appellant, nor
his family members have any criminal antecedents, nor are they
involved in any criminal activity, nor the appellant is in
association of any known criminals.
33. It is true that the family of the appellant is poor and
poverty is a hurdle in his proper development. But this
shortcoming may be overcome by taking positive measures on
the part of District Administration by providing benefit of
welfare schemes of the Government. Moreover, no one can take
better care than father of the child and every child has right to
get reunited with his family at the earliest.
34. In such situations, the impugned order is not
sustainable and hence, it is liable to be set aside.
35. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed
directing the appellant to be released on bail, subject to

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
22/23
furnishing the bail bond of Rs.10,000/- and undertaking by his
father by way of affidavit that he would keep vigil on the
appellant regarding his habits and he would not allow the
appellant to come in contact with any criminal persons and take
care of other developmental needs of the appellant and the
appellant would attend the Court as and when required or
directed.
36. As the appellant and his family are suffering from
poverty, learned Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Begusarai is directed to assist the appellant in getting benefit of
welfare schemes of the Government like Rasan Card and getting
grains from P.D.S. under the Government scheme, if he is not
already getting such grains. District Magistrate, Begusarai is also
directed to co-operate and collaborate with learned Secretary,
District Legal Services Authority, Begusarai in the aforesaid
efforts. Learned Secretary DLSA and District Magistrate would
also explore the possibility of getting loan by the appellant and
his father for doing some business or any other activity for their
livelihood.
37. The Lower Court Records be sent back to the
Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
38. Let a copy of this order be also sent to learned

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3153 of 2025 dt.08-05-2026
23/23
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Begusarai and
District Magistrate, Begusarai for their information and needful.

(Jitendra Kumar, J)
shoaib/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09-05-2026
Transmission Date 09-05-2026