REDACTED vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.264 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas
======================================================
XXX S/o Yogendra Pandey @ Tuna Pandey, Resident of village- Tora, PS-
Dinara, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Milan Pandey S/o Late Sri Bhagwan Pandey R/o vill - Tora, P.S.- Dinara,
Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Kant, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gajendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
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.
2. The instant criminal revision petition is directed
against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special
st
Judge, Children Court-cum-1 District and Additional Sessions
Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2026,
whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed and the
order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas dated 19.01.2026
passed in JJB Case No. 651 of 2025, arising out of Dinara P.S.
Case No. 167 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections
103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms
Act, refusing prayer for bail, has been affirmed.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/8
3. Briefly stated facts of the case as it appears from
the record, are that the OP No. 2 instituted Dinara P.S. Case No.
167 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023
and Section 27 of the Arms Act alleging that on 20.04.2025 at
about 11 PM, while a marriage ceremony was taking place besides
the house of the OP No. 2, he received information that his brother
was shot dead. When he reached the place of occurrence, he saw
the dead body of his brother with pellet injury in his stomach. The
OP No. 2 suspected that the petitioner along with his father has
murdered his brother.
4. The petitioner surrendered in the Court of learned
J.J. Board, Rohtas at Sasaram on 21.11.2025. The J.J. Board,
Rohtas at Sasaram declared the petitioner to be child in conflict
with law (for brevity, “CICL”) and declared the age of the
petitioner to be 16 years, 4 months and 18 days on the date of
commission of the offence. The petitioner moved for grant of bail
before the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas. The Board rejected his
application for bail vide order dated 19.01.2026 passed in J.J.B.
Case No. 651 of 2025.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2026
passed by the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas, the petitioner preferred
Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2026 in the Court of learned Special Judge,
st
Children Court-cum-1 District and Additional Sessions Judge,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/8
Rohtas at Sasaram. The Appellate Court vide order dated
23.02.2026 dismissed the appeal and has upheld the order dated
19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2026
passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2026 and
order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned J.J. Board Rohtas in
J.J.B. Case No. 651 of 2025, the petitioner has moved the present
revision petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner / CICL submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely
on the basis of suspicion. There is inordinate delay of 24 hours in
filing of the FIR. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence
and the case is based on incomplete circumstantial evidence.
Learned counsel further submits that the orders of the learned JJ
Board, Rohtas and the Appellate Court are not sustainable.
Learned subordinate Courts failed to consider that there was no
cogent material against the petitioner in the Social Investigation
Report. Learned counsel also submits that if the CICL is released
on bail, there is no danger of moral, physical or psychological
harm to the petitioner or that his release would defeat the ends of
justice or he would come in contact with bad company or known
criminals. Learned counsel also submits that the purpose of J.J.
Act is reforming a CICL and not to penalize him. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/8
further submits that the mother of the petitioner / CICL undertakes
to look after him under her guardianship and she will not let him
come in contact with bad company. Learned counsel lastly submits
that petitioner / CICL carries three criminal antecedent and he is
on bail in all the said cases.
8. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner / CICL. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that the petitioner / CICL has three criminal
antecedents to his discredit which reflects his repeated
involvements in criminal cases. Learned counsel further submits
that there is no infirmity in the orders of the learned J.J. Board and
the learned Appellate Court. The learned subordinate Courts have
passed the orders after due consideration of the facts and law
involved in the case.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record.
10. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “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 defeat
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/8
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.
12. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions show
the CICL should be released on bail unless the fact comes on
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/8
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 material on record to show that
petitioner / CICL will come into contact with any known criminal
or that the petitioner is having no guardianship. The SIR rather
shows that the petitioner / CICL is a student and his friends are
also from the educated background. Furthermore, merely because
the petitioner/CICL has got three criminal antecedents, it cannot be
presumed that he has become incorrigible and is not amenable to
reformatory steps. 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 the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/8
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 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Children
st
Court-cum-1 District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at
Sasaram, in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2026 is set aside.
Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas in JJB
Case No. 651 of 2025, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 167 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, Rohtas /
concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 651 of 2025,
arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 167 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.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.264 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
8/8
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 02.09.2026
Transmission Date 02.09.2026