REDACTED vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.300 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-446 Year-2025 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
X S/O Ranjeet Ray, R/O Vill- Gannipur Benjha, P.S- Sakra, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjeet Kumar S/O Baidnath Rai R/O Vill and post - Gannipur Benjha, P.S-
Sakra, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam
For the Informant : Mr. Yugal Kishore, 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
st
against the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned 1
Additional Session Judge, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 05
of 2026, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed
and the order of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur dated
11.12.2025 passed in JJB Case No. 342 of 2025, arising out of
Sakra P.S. Case No. 446 of 2025 for offences punishable under
Sections 103(1) and 238 of the B.N.S., 2023, refusing prayer for
bail, has been affirmed.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case as it appears from

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/7
record, are that, a four and half year old minor girl child was
murdered and the name of the petitioner surfaced during
investigation.
4. The petitioner is in remand home since
04.11.2025. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the
learned J.J. Board, Muzaffarpur. The Board rejected his
application for bail vide order dated 11.12.2025 passed in J.J.B.
Case No. 342 of 2025.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2025
passed by the learned J.J. Board, Muzaffarpur, the petitioner
st
preferred Cr. Appeal No. 05 of 2026 in the Court of learned 1
Additional Session Judge, Muzaffarpur. The Appellate Court vide
order dated 10.02.2026 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order
dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Muzaffarpur.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2026
passed by the Appellate Court in Cr. Appeal No. 05 of 2026 and
order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board,
Muzaffarpur, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition
before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner / CICL submits
that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and his
name sprung up during investigation. There is no direct evidence

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/7
against the petitioner which may connect him with the alleged
occurrence and the entire prosecution story is based on
presumptions and hearsay. Learned counsel further submits that
CICL is entitled to be granted bail irrespective of the nature of
offence committed by him. The bail could be denied to him only
on the ground that his release would likely to bring him under
influence of any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. The
learned subordinate Courts have rejected the bail application of the
petitioner mechanically and without appreciating the provision of
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act of 2015”). The learned
Courts have failed to consider that detention of a CICL should be
the last resort and for the shorted possible period. Learned counsel
further submits that the purpose of J.J. Act is to reform a CICL and
not to penalize him. Learned counsel further submits that grant of
bail is a rule under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 and refusal could
only be under the exception under the proviso of the said
provision, but none of the conditions are present in the instant case
of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner is having clean antecedent. Therefore, the impugned
orders of the learned Appellate Court as well the learned J.J. Board
are not sustainable and need to be set aside allowing the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/7
to be enlarged on bail.
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 there is no infirmity in the learned
subordinate Courts and the said orders have been passed after due
consideration of facts and law involved in the case and the appeal
of the petitioner was rejected on completely valid ground.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record.
10. Section 12 of 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 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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/7
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
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 any material on record to show
that petitioner/CICL will come into contact with any known

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/7
criminal or that the petitioner is having no guardianship. 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 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
st
dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned 1 Additional Session
Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2026 is set
aside. Consequently, the order of the learned J.J. Board,
Muzaffarpur in JJB Case No. 342 of 2025, arising out of Sakra P.S.
Case No. 446 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, Muzaffarpur /
concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 342 of 2025,

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.300 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/7
arising out of Sakra P.S. Case No. 446 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
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 03.09.2026
Transmission Date 03.09.2026