The Patna High Court has observed ruled that neither the seriousness of the alleged offense nor the age of the juvenile can be considered valid grounds for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (J.J.) Act, 2015. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule and its denial is an exception, to be justified only under specific conditions outlined in the Act.

The Court further held that institutionalization should be a measure of last resort, emphasizing that the family is the primary institution for the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child in conflict with the law. It has set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, reiterating that the juvenile justice system is reformatory, not punitive.

The Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar held, "Seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act."

"Even a child who has completed or is above the age of 16 years and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification whatsoever provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in regard to grant of bail. Section 12 is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature," the Bench added.

The Single Judge observed, "Reformatory or Observation Home is one of the measures contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating delinquent children. However, the family of the child in conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the Act… Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law has been contemplated as the last resort."

Advocate Rabindra Prasad Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while APP Chandra Sen Prasad Singh appeared for the State.

Case Background

The Court made the observation while dealing with a Criminal Revision petition challenging the Special Children Court’s order upholding the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) decision to deny bail.

According to the prosecution, on July 19, 2022, the informant’s son, Rahul Kumar, received a phone call around 2:45 PM and went to meet one of the accused. Shortly after, he was found unconscious with gunshot injuries near Banke Rai Kucha and later succumbed to his wounds. The informant alleged that the murder was a conspiracy involving the petitioner and others, including Amit Kumar Pandey @ Golu.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the bail rejection was based on conjecture, asserting that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, belonged to an educated family, and had no proven links with criminals. It was contended that the Special Children Court wrongly presumed a likelihood of reoffending without any material evidence.

Conversely, the State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and associating with criminal elements, making bail risky.

Court's Observations

The Court analyzed Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (J.J.) Act, 2015, which states that bail for a juvenile is the rule and refusal is the exception. A juvenile can only be denied bail if:

1. There is a likelihood of association with known criminals

2. Release would expose the juvenile to moral, physical, or psychological danger

3. Release would defeat the ends of justice

The Court ruled that none of these conditions were met in this case. The Social Investigation Report by the Probation Officer found no criminal background in the petitioner’s family. The Court held that the lower court's finding—that the petitioner might associate with criminals—was totally unfounded.

Rejecting the Special Children Court’s argument that bail was not in the child’s best interest, the High Court emphasized, "Reformation, development, reintegration, and rehabilitation of the child is the main object of the Act, and the family is considered better than any other institution for the child's care and protection. Who can think and act better than the parents of the child about their welfare?"

Court's Directions

The High Court set aside the lower court’s order and directed that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a Rs. 10,000 bond. Additionally, the petitioner’s father must submit an affidavit ensuring that the child stays away from criminal influences, continues education, and appears before the Juvenile Justice Board as required.

"The impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly set aside and the present petition is allowed directing the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) by his father. The father of the Petitioner is also directed to give undertaking by way of affidavit that the child/Petitioner does not come into contact with any criminal and he would take care of the developmental needs of the child and he would also ensure that the child would continue his studies and attend the J.J. Board and Courts as and when required or directed," the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar v. The State of Bihar [Criminal Revision No. 617 of 2024]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Jitendra KumarJuvenile Justice ActMurder Case

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.