It Can’t Be Presumed That Juvenile Isn’t Amenable To Reformatory Steps Merely Because He Is Made Accused In Four Cases: Patna High Court

The revision petition before the High Court was filed against the order of the District & Additional Sessions Judge arising out of a case registered under Section 317(5) of the BNS and Section 21(1-b) a, 26 of the Arms Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner was refused and the appeal was dismissed. The appeal was preferred against the order of the JJ Board.

The Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha held, “Merely because petitioner has been made accused in four cases, it cannot be presumed that he has become incorrigible and is not amenable to reformatory steps. Moreover the main purpose of enactment of Juvenile Justice Act, is the reformation of children in conflict with law. Therefore, the petitioner could be given an opportunity to join the mainstream.”

Advocate Bhola Prasad represented the Petitioner while Special Public Prosecutor Shailendra Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecution case was based on the written report of the informant, wherein he stated that a motorcycle rider (petitioner) tried to run away taking a U-turn on seeing the police party. The Petitioner was apprehended. Upon search of the petitioner, a loaded country made katta, one live cartridge and a white colour motorcycle without any number plate were recovered and seized. Subsequently, the petitioner was declared a child in conflict with the law vide order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.

An application was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking bail on behalf of the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Against the rejection order, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge and the said appeal was also dismissed.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the main consideration for refusal of bail of the petitioner/child in conflict with law was the apprehension that he would again come in the company of bad elements. A suspicion was raised that the petitioner was being used by some gang. “If there was no material to substantiate the claim against the petitioner/child in conflict with law, such inference could not be correct unless fully supported with hard facts”, it added.

The Bench referred to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and observed that there exists a non-obstante clause that a child in conflict with law shall be released on bail notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. “In the light of the aforesaid provisions, the case of any child in conflict with law for grant of bail is to be considered. Underlying principle is the best interest of the child and gravity and nature of offences are immaterial for consideration of grant of bail to a child/juvenile in conflict with law”, it added.

The Bench further observed, “The cumulative reading of these two provisions makes it amply clear that it is the interest of the child which is paramount and orders of the Court should be towards this end only. If the father of the petitioner/child in conflict with law undertakes that he will look after the petitioner and would not allow him to fall in bad company, the release of the petitioner could be considered under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as there are no other hindrances.”

Allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Court and the JJ Board, the Bench ordered the release of the petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount.

Cause Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj v. The State Of Bihar (Criminal Revision No. 820 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order