PQRS vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1796 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010456832026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
CICL
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar
2. XYZ
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
For the Informant : Ms.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2026
Introduction
The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant
against the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, passed by learned
st
District and Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Court,
Khagaria in A.B.P. No.144 of 2026 arising out of Special Child
Case No. 1 of 2026 corresponding to Parbatta P.S. Case No.349
of 2025, whereby learned Special Court has rejected the regular
bail application of the Appellant under Section 12 of the J.J. Act
on account of heinous nature of the alleged offence.
Prosecution Case
2. As per the prosecution case on 12.09.2025 at about
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
2/22
11:25 O’ Clock, a telephone call came to the mobile of the
Informant bearing No.9835409448 from the mobile
No.8210518816 and 6202394989 which was received by a 14
year old daughter of the Informant. The phone call was from
Sachin Kumar, who is the Appellant herein and as per the
written report he told the daughter of the Informant to come at
her door and when she came at her door, the Appellant took her
at the Bandh on his motorcycle for talking, where the Appellant
and other co-accused were already present and they forcibly
made her consume wine and tablet. Thereafter, she was taken
under the Bandh and she was committed gang rape upon one-
by-one. As per further allegation, all the accused persons
including the Appellant was in drunken condition. There were
signs of injury caused on the back of the victim and also both
her hands were injured by thorns. She did not submit her written
report in time due to social reasons. During investigation
statement of the victim under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was also
recorded, in which she has supported the prosecution case
against the accused persons including the Petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
APP for the State.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
3/22
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in case.
He further submits that learned Special Court has rejected the
regular bail application of the Appellant on the ground of
heinous nature of the offence which is not permissible under J.J.
Act. Under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, regular bail application of
any juvenile in conflict with law can be rejected only under
limited three grounds and heinous nature of the alleged offence
is not a ground for rejection of bail to the Appellant under
Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
5 . Even on merit, learned counsel for the Appellant
submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged offence. As
per the prosecution case, he has taken the victim from her home
to the place of occurrence but no one has seen him committing
rape upon the victim and there is no scientific evidence which
may connect the Appellant to the alleged offence. He also
submits that the Appellant has clean antecedent. Even, none of
his family members including his parents has any criminal
history, though he belongs to a poor family.
6 . He further submits that the Father of the Appellant
is ready to give undertaking to ensure that the Appellant does
not commit any offense and he pursues his further studies.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
4/22
Submission on behalf of the State
7. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the Informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the
Appellant for bail submitting that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order whereby regular bail application
of the Appellant has been rejected. They further submit that the
Appellant along with the other co-accused have caused the
alleged offence which is of very heinous nature because they
have allegedly committed gang rape upon a 14 year old victim
girl and their activity also show that they are matured enough to
understand the nature and consequences of the alleged offence.
Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles
under the J. J. Act, 2015.
8. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
5/22
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)
9 . 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.
10. Hon’ble Apex Court in Juvenile in Conflict
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
6/22
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)
11. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
7/22
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)
12. 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 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)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
8/22
13. 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 ).
14. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
9/22
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)
15 . 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
10/22
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)
16. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
11/22
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) 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)
17. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
12/22
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.
(Emphasis supplied)
18. 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)
19 . The purpose and object of the J.J. Act manifests
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
13/22
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)
20. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
14/22
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)
21 . 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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
15/22
22. 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 ).
23 . 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:—
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
16/22
………………………………………………………...
(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)
24 . 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.
25. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the
following judgments :
(i) Biswajit Kr. Pandey @ Lalu Kr. Vs. State of Bihar
2024 SCC OnLine Pat 8499
(ii) Nitish Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2421
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
17/22
(iii) Chandan Kr. Paswan Vs. State of Bihar
2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2434
(iv) Rakesh Rai Vs. State of Bihar
2025 SCC Online Pat 374
(v) Avnish Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
2025 SCC OnLine Pat 2529.
Summary of the legal Provisions
26. 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.
26(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.
26(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged
offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12
of the J.J. Act.
26(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,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
18/22
development and rehabilitation of the juvenile, only then it can
be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
26(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.
26(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.
26(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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
19/22
mainstream of the society.
26(7). All resources have to be mobilized 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-Consideration
27. I considered the rival submissions of the parties
and perused the material on record.
28 . I find that the Appellant and other co-accused are
accused of committing gang rape upon a 14 year old girl and the
allegation is supported by her statement as recorded under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. The alleged acts also demonstrate that the
Appellants behaved like matured persons understanding the
nature and consequences of the offence.
29 . However, it is settled principle of law that Section
12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable even to the juvenile who
are between 16 and 18 years of age and alleged to have
committed heinous offence.
30 . It is also settled principle of law that heinous
nature of the alleged offence is not a ground to reject the regular
bail application of the Appellant under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
20/22
At the time of consideration of the regular bail application of the
Appellant, the main point for the Court to consider is whether
the detention of the Appellant would ensure better reformation
and development of the juvenile at the observation home or at
his parents home and to find whether there is any ground
available as provided in the proviso to Section12 of the J.J. Act.
31 . It is also a settled principle of law that family is
the first and foremost desirable institution for reformation and
rehabilitation of any juvenile in conflict with law and
institutionalization of the juvenile is the last resort. No one can
take better care of a juvenile than his parents and family
members. Hence, if the environment of the family is otherwise
not adverse to reformation and development of a juvenile in
conflict with law, it is desirable to release him on bail.
32 . In the case on hand, I find that the Appellant has
no criminal antecedents, nor any member of his family,
including his parents, has any criminal history.
33 . From the Social Investigation Report it transpires
that the Appellant belongs to a very poor family and his father
works as a labourer in Bengal, whereas the Appellant was
th
student of class 10 . It is also nowhere mentioned in the Social
Investigation Report that the Appellant has association with any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
21/22
known criminal or criminal gang, nor there is any such report
which may suggest that if the Appellant is released on bail, it
may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
34 . I further find that learned Special Court has not
rejected the regular bail application of the Appellant on any
permissible ground as provided under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.
His bail application has been rejected by learned Special Court
on the ground of heinous nature of the offence. There is no
dispute that the alleged offence is very heinous in nature and we
all have sympathy for the victim. However, it is also a settled
principle of law that heinous nature of the offence is not a
ground for rejection of the bail to a juvenile in conflict with law
under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. Hence, the impugned order is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
35. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, setting
aside the impugned order, directing the appellant to be released
on bail, subject to 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 the developmental needs of the appellant and
the appellant would attend the Court as and when required or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1796 of 2026 dt.29-10-2026
22/22
directed. He will also ensure that he does not get involved in
the commission of any offense. The father of the Appellant will
reside in Bihar at his village and will do his labour work there
itself. He will also ensure that the Appellant pursues his further
studies and does not commit any other offence and does not
extend any threat to any of the witnesses of this case.
36. The Trial Court Records be sent back to the
Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R
CAV DATE N.A
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date 30.10.2026