Bihar HC Rejects Minor’s Challenge to Children’s Court Trial After JJB Finds Him Capable of Understanding Its Consequences

The appellant, a child in conflict with law, appealed the order dated 3 January 2026 of the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda, which rejected his application to send his case back to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) for trial.

The case arose from a murder and related Arms Act allegations; the appellant maintained that he was not implicated in the FIR or the co-accused’s statements and had later been apprehended carrying the weapon.

In response to a coordinate Bench’s direction, the Children’s Court reported that the JJB had assessed the appellant as being between 16 and 18 years of age, capable of understanding the consequences of his actions, and had transferred his case to the Children’s Court under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for a preliminary assessment by the JJB in the case of a child aged 16 or above alleged to have committed a heinous offence, including assessment of the child’s capacity to understand the consequences of the alleged offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.

Under Section 18(3), following the requisite assessment, the JJB may transfer the case to the Children’s Court if it considers trial as an adult appropriate.

The judgment records the application of these provisions but does not set out a broader legal test or rely on cited precedents.

The court treated the appeal as concerning the forum for trial, not the appellant’s alleged participation in the murder.

It noted the Children’s Court’s report that the JJB had assessed the appellant under Section 15 and transferred the case under Section 18(3).

The appellant’s arguments about his lack of involvement in the killing were matters for trial, and his counsel did not rebut the State’s submissions concerning the JJB’s assessment and transfer.

On that record, the court declined to interfere.