Bittu Kumar @ Bittu Yadav vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.623 of 2026
In
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1031 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-879 Year-2021 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Bittu Kumar @ Bittu Yadav, S/O Sri Ganesh Yadav @ Ganesh Kumar Yadav,
R/O Mathahi Ward No. 5, P.S- Madhepura (Mathai O.P.), Distt.- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gyan Kumar, S/O Patvari Prasad Yadav, R/O Village- Kharik Dhoriya, P.S-
Kharik and Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Ms.Usha Kumari 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-07-2026
Introduction
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
against the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, passed by learned
st
1 Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura - cum - Special Judge,
Children Court and Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Children Case No. 23 of 2024
arising out of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 879 of 2021, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereby the
Bail Petition No. 1590 of 2025 has been rejected by learned
Children Court for releasing the appellant on regular bail.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
2/23
Factual Background
2. As per prosecution case, Madehpura P.S. Case No. 879
of 2021 was registered on 12.11.2021 for the offences
punishable under Sections 392, 397 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act against some unknown persons.
3 . As per written report, the informant was robbed of
RS.23,570/- by two persons riding on Motorcycle. The name of
the appellant has transpired in the confessional statement of co-
accused and as per prosecution case the petitioner has also
confessed before the police about his involvement in the alleged
offence. However, nothing incriminating material has been
recovered from the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
4. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned APP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that the appellant has been falsely
implicated even in other eight cases in which he has been
acquitted except in one case which is pending, in addition to the
present case. He further submits that the appellant belongs to
extremely poor family and on account of hostility of some local
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
3/23
people, he has been implicated in the false cases without any
incriminating material and he was remanded in this case from
another pending cases. He also submits that the appellant has
been in Observation Home since 27.03.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that
the finding of learned Children Court regarding
contact/association of the appellant with anti-social elements is
without any basis. The Social Investigation Report nowhere
refers to his association or contact with the anti-social elements.
On the contrary, there is specific report that the appellant has not
been used by any gang or any criminal. As per the Social
Investigation Report, he has been shown as student of good
th
conduct. He was studying in 11 class of B.N.M.V College,
Madehpura. He is religious in nature. His conduct with family
members and other people is very cordial. There is nothing
adverse against the appellant in the Social Investigation Report
except reference to eight criminal antecedents. However, these
criminal antecedents are on account of false implication by
hostile co-villagers and out of eight criminal antecedents, in six
cases, he has been acquitted and two other cases are pending in
which he is on bail. There is no any incriminating material
available on record against the appellant. In all likelihood, he is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
4/23
going to be acquitted in the pending cases. Moreover, he
belongs to a very poor family. He has only a thatched house and
his father is educated upto M.A. but he is blind on account of
some accident. Even his mother is physically challenged. His
sister has been already married off. As such, the whole family is
dependent upon the appellant and in his absence, the whole
family is getting ruined causing unbearable hardship to his
parents. His career is also getting ruined because his studies has
been discontinued.
Submissions on behalf of the State
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Appellant for bail submitting that there
is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
5/23
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)
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
6/23
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
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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
7/23
..................................................................................
......
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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
8/23
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)
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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
9/23
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 Code of
Criminal Procedure. As is evident from Section 12
of the Act of 2015, the only embargo in not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
10/23
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
11/23
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)
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
12/23
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) of the J.J. Act, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
13/23
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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
14/23
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
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:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
15/23
“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.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
16/23
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
17/23
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
18/23
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.
………………………………………………………
….
(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.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
19/23
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
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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
20/23
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
21/23
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.
26(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
27. I perused the material on record and considered the
submissions advanced by both the parties.
28 . I find that learned Children Court has rejected the
regular bail application of the appellant under Section 12 of the
J.J. Act only on the ground that he has association with anti-
social elements showing his criminal activities and he has eight
criminal antecedents.
29 . However, finding of learned Children Court regarding
association of the appellant with criminal people is not based on
facts. On the contrary, as per Social Investigation Report, the
child is a of good behaviour and he is facing criminal cases only
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
22/23
on account of false implication and the whole family is
dependent upon him. In such situation, refusal to release the
appellant on bail would be against the best interest of the child,
because he is neither continuing his studies, nor is he able to
support his physically challenged parents.
30 . Hence, the present appeal is allowed setting aside the
impugned order dated 26.06.2025 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 other developmental
needs of the appellant and the appellant would attend the Court
as and when required or directed.
31. In view of stark poverty of the appellant, the District
Magistrate, Madehpura, is directed to take welfare measures in
favour of the appellant and his parents, if permissible under the
Government schemes, like, providing pucca house and grant of
grains under the Government scheme or any other welfare
schemes.
32. The Secretary, DLSA, Madhepura is also directed to
collaborate with the District Magistrate in such benevolent steps
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.623 of 2026 dt.02-07-2026
23/23
to be taken by the District Magistrate, so that this appellant
could be properly reformed and rehabilitated and his family is
prevented from getting ruined.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
S.Ali/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 03.07.2026
Transmission Date 03.07.2026