CICL X vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1359 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
======================================================
CICL X Son of Bhushan Sah @ Bhushan Gupta, Under guardianship of his
father Bhushan Sah @ Bhushan Gupta, Son of Brahmdeo Sah Resident of
Village Kaswa, Ward No. 06, P.S. - Balia, District - Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Afsana Khatoon Wife of Md. Amzad R/o Village - Kasba, P.S. - Balia, Dist.
- Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Saudip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2026
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
02. The present petition has been filed for setting
aside the Judgment/Order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge,
NDPS Act and Presiding Officer of Children Court, Begusarai
passed in Cr. (J.V.)Appeal No. 17 of 2025 whereby and
whereunder the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned
J.J.Board, Begusarai rejecting the prayer for bail by the
petitioner in JJB No. 83 of 2025 arising out of Ballia P.S. Case
No. 60 of 2025 for the offences under Section 65(2) of the BNS
and Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act has been affirmed thereby
the prayer for bail of the petitioner/child in conflict with law
was rejected by both the courts.
03. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Ballia P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2025 has been registered under Sections 65(2) of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1359 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
2/7
the BNS and Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act on fardbayan of
the informant wherein she alleged that her five year old
daughter was ravished by the petitioner. The petitioner was
taken into custody on 25.02.2025 and his age was declared to be
15 years 10 months and 14 days vide order dated 19.05.2025 by
the learned J.J. Board, Begusarai and the petitioner was declared
to be Child in Conflict with Law (in short “CICL”).
04. Petitioner moved for grant of bail before the
learned J.J. Board and the learned J.J. Board, Begusarai vide its
order dated 28.05.2025 passed in JJB No. 83 of 2025 rejected
the prayer for bail.
05. Against the rejection order of the learned J.J.
Board, Begusarai, the petitioner went into appeal. Further, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge,
NDPS Act and Presiding Officer of Children Court, Begusarai
vide its order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Cr. (J.V.)Appeal No.
17 of 2025 also rejected the prayer for bail.
06. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent rejection of
his prayer for bail by the two courts, the petitioner has
challenged the order of the learned appellate court in the instant
revision petition.
07. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1359 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
3/7
petitioner submits that the petitioner is having clean antecedent
and he has not committed any offence. The prosecution story is
not believable that the occurrence took place in the middle of
the day when there are always people present at the shop.
Learned counsel also submits that the learned appellate court as
well as the learned J.J. Board, Begusarai rejected the prayer for
bail considering the gravity of the offences but under Section 12
of the 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act (in short “J.J. Act”), grant of bail to a CICL is
mandatory unless release of such child would expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or there was chance
that such release would bring the child into association of
known criminals or such release would defeat the ends of
justice. Learned counsel further submits that though the
subordinate courts have observed that as the petitioner and the
victim belong to two different communities, release of CICL
would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger
but there is no material available to support such contention.
Similarly, the observation made by the learned appellate court
about the petitioner/CICL having addiction of smoking and
alcohol is not supported by the social investigation report or
social background report. Learned counsel also submits that the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1359 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
4/7
charge sheet has been submitted in this case and the petitioner is
a student of Class 11 and if he is allowed to continue in
protective custody, his career would be ruined. The negative
report about petitioner has been given by the people belonging
to the majority group where the family of the petitioner is in
minority and therefore, negative view is not sustainable.
Learned counsel further submits that the parents of the
petitioner are ready to take care of him and they further
undertake that the petitioner would not be allowed to come in
contact with bad elements. Learned counsel relied on other
decision of this court passed in XXX Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,
Criminal Revision No.403 of 2025, as well as another decision
of learned Single Judge passed in the case of XX vs. State of
Bihar, 2020(4) BLJ 414 , in support of his contention that bail
could not be denied to a CICL due to enormity and graveness of
the allegation.
08. Learned APP and learned counsel for the
informant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently oppose the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel
for the informant submits that the medical report proves the
commission of offence of rape. The petitioner perpetrated a very
heinous offence with a five year old girl. In the social
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1359 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
5/7
background report of the petitioner, it has come that he was in
contact with old boys who are addicted to smoking, alcohol and
teasing girls and also engaged in wrongful activities and there
was every chance that if the petitioner is released on bail, he
would come in contact with those bad elements.
09. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties.
10. Section 12 of the J.J. Act provides that a CICL
shall be granted bail except for certain conditions in the proviso
to the said section. It has been stipulated that a CICL would not
be released on bail if such release would bring him in
association with any known criminals or such release would
expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or
such release would result in defeating the ends of justice.
11. Section 3(iv) of the J.J. Act 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 J.J. Act makes it abundantly clear
that a child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last
resort after making a reasonable inquiry. Section 3(xiii) of the
J.J. Act provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1359 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
6/7
which reads as follows:
“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.”
12. In the present facts and circumstances, it is
evident that the petitioner/CICL is in protective custody since
25.02.2025. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent
and this is the first offence of the petitioner. Social Investigation
Report is more or less favourable. Social Background Report
talks about the company of the petitioner being bad but at the
same time, petitioner is a student and has been studying in Class
11 when he was taken into custody. It is also a fact that
institutionalization of a CICL is never in his best interest and
could be employed only as a last resort. The reformation and
rehabilitation of a child is better if he is kept in his family and
not by putting the child under protective custody. So far as
apprehension of exposure to physical and psychological danger
is concerned, nothing has come on record to support this
contention. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
impugned orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1359 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
7/7
cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act and Presiding Officer of
Children Court, Begusarai could not be sustained and
accordingly, the order dated 24.09.2025 is set aside.
Consequently, the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned
J.J. Board, Begusarai is also set aside.
13. Accordingly, the present revision petition is
allowed and petitioner/CICL is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned J.J.Board, Begusarai/concerned court, in
connection with JJB No. 83 of 2025 arising out of Ballia P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be the parents of the
petitioner and other bailor will also be relative of
the petitioner having no criminal antecedent and
giving undertaking that he/she shall keep proper
care and upkeep of the appellant.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the
Board on each and every date of trial of the case
fixed by the Board and shall fully co-operate in
the pending enquiry/trial.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE -
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date 08.07.2026