REDACTED vs The State of Bihar

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.278 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria
======================================================
XX S/O Vijal Singh Resident of Village-Medni Nagar, PS- Chautham,
District- Khagaria, through his maternal uncle(Mama) and guardian Nanku
Kumar age about 42 years(Male) S/O Ramdeo Singh, R/O Village-
Lakshmipur, PS- Chautham, Distt- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kr. Agrawal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, 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 29.01.2026 passed by the learned
st
Additional District and Session Judge-1 -cum-Special Court,
Khagaria in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025, whereby and
whereunder the appeal was dismissed and the order of learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Khagaria dated 10.11.2025 passed in JJB
Case No. 132 of 2025, arising out of Chautham P.S. Case No. 90
of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)
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.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/8
3. As per prosecution case, while the informant along
with her husband was coming to her home by motorcycle, their
motorcycle was dashed by another motorcycle on which three
persons were riding. The miscreants started firing from their
pistols. The informant identified the miscreants as Ashish Kumar,
this petitioner and Ritesh Kumar. The informant further alleged
that Ashish Kumar shot on the head of informant’s husband, who
later died during treatment.
4. The petitioner was declared as a child in conflict
with law (for brevity, “CICL”) vide order dated 20.08.2025. The
J.J. Board, Khagaria determined the age of the petitioner to be
14 years, 6 months and 2 days on the date of commission of the
offence. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the
learned J.J. Board, Khagaria. The Board rejected his application
for bail vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed in J.J.B. Case No.
132 of 2025.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2025
passed by the learned J.J. Board, Khagaria, the petitioner preferred
Cr. Appeal No. 30 of 2025 in the Court of learned Additional
st
District and Session Judge-1 -cum-Special Court, Khagaria. The
Appellate Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 dismissed the appeal
and has upheld the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned
J.J. Board, Khagaria.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/8
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2026
passed by the Appellate Court and order dated 10.11.2025 passed
by the learned J.J. Board, Khagaria, 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. Learned
counsel further submits that the orders of the learned subordinate
Courts are not sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that
the specific allegation of firing is against accused Ashish Kumar
who shot on the head of the informant’s husband. The allegation
against the petitioner is general and omnibus. There is no
independent eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. Learned
counsel further submits that as per Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity,
“the Act of 2015”), the CICL is entitled to be granted bail
irrespective of nature of offence committed by him. The bail could
be denied only on the ground that his release would likely to bring
him under the influence of any criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of
justice. The learned J.J. Board, Khagaria refused to grant bail to
the petitioner on the basis of social investigation report that he
indulged in such a heinous offence due to bad association. Learned
counsel further submits that the purpose of J.J. Act is reforming a

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/8
CICL and not to penalize him. Learned counsel further submits
that there is no cogent material against the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submits that the maternal uncle of the CICL
undertakes that he would look after the CICL and give him proper
education and further undertakes that if the petitioner is released
on bail, there is no danger or moral, physical or psychological
harm to the petitioner or that his release would defeat the ends of
justice and he will not allow the petitioner to come in contact with
bad company. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner has
clean antecedent and he is in remand home since 01.07.2025.
8. Learned APP for the State as well as the learned
counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that there is no infirmity in the orders of learned
Courts below 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. Learned
J.J. Board has also observed that if the CICL is released, there is
apprehension of physical, moral or psychological danger to the
CICL.
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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/8
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
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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/8
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. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Court
dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and
st
Session Judge-1 -cum-Special Court, Khagaria in Criminal Appeal
No. 30 of 2025 is set aside. Consequently, the order of the learned
J.J. Board Khagaria in JJB Case No. 132 of 2025, arising out of
Chautham P.S. Case No. 90 of 2025 is also set aside.
14. 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 the petitioner / CICL will come into contact with any known
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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/8
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
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, Khagaria /
concerned Court in connection with JJB Case No. 132 of 2025,
arising out of Chautham P.S. Case No. 90 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

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.278 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
8/8
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
Transmission Date