PATNA, India, July 1 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 10:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.904 of 2025

Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-185 Year-2024, Thana- Mehandiganj, District- Patna

XXXX Juvenile through Natural Guardian S/o Md. Dhamin @ Guddu @ Md. Shamim Khan, S/o Md. Aslam, R/o Mohalla- Chik Toli, P.S.- Chowk, District- Patna ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... Respondent

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar

For the Respondent: Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 10.06.2026

Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Children's Court-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna, in connection with Mehandiganj P.S. Case No.185 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 310(2) of the BNS, whereby the learned Court refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

3. The Child in Conflict with Law (CICL)/petitioner, aged about 16 years and 11 months on the alleged date of occurrence, is not named in the FIR and has been lodged in the Observation Home since 15.01.2025.

4. As per the FIR, six unknown miscreants forcibly entered the informant's house and, after confining the informant and his daughter-in-law in a room, looted household articles, jewellery and cash amounting to Rs.1.5 lakhs.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CICL/petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced during investigation only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Md. Chand @ Maya Bhai, who has already been granted regular bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.36432 of 2025 dated 09.10.2025. It was further submitted that no recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner and that he has a clean antecedent. Counsel also pointed out that the Social Investigation Report nowhere indicates that the petitioner is incapable of reform or of rejoining the mainstream of society. It was therefore argued that there would be no harm in releasing the juvenile under the supervision and care of his father, who is willing to extend proper care and guidance.

6. Learned APP opposed the prayer for bail.

7. Having regard to the submissions and the materials on record showing that the petitioner has been adjudged a juvenile aged about 16 years and 11 months on the date of occurrence, has remained in the Observation Home since 15.01.2025, and that his father is ready to stand as surety and undertake to ensure that the petitioner does not fall into bad company and will inform the jurisdictional police station in case he indulges in any unlawful activity, this Court considered the spirit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in Lalu Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 833, wherein it was held that classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable is not relevant while considering bail for a juvenile and that bail can be refused only if:

(i) The release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal;

(ii) The release is likely to expose the juvenile to moral or physical danger; or

(iii) The release would defeat the ends of justice.

8. Taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, the materials on record, the period of incarceration, and the best interest of the CICL, this Court held that the impugned order was not in consonance with the aims and objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Social Investigation Report also suggested scope for reform and did not contain any adverse observation against the petitioner.

Rest of the judgement can be viewed here: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyM5MDQjMjAyNSMxI04=-dNAIK5OL8eQ=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.