Supreme Court seized with challenge against Patna High Court's order which set aside Children’s Court's order against order by Juvenile Justice Board

In Munni Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025), Supreme Court's Division of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi passed a 2-page long order dated November 20, 2025, upon hearing the SLP (Criminal) wherein the petitioner has challenged the 6-page long order dated July 31, 2025 by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of the Patna High Court in Gautam Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025). The Division Bench condoned the delay, issued notice, returnable on January 9, 2026. The order reads: "5. In the notice itself let it be mentioned that the 1respondents are required to file the counter affidavit before the next date of listing. 6. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of all further proceedings arising out of FIR No.644 of 2022 of Ara Town Police Station, Bhojpur District, Bihar." 

In Gautam Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.(2025), Justice Chaudhuri had passed the order dated July 31, 2025, wherein, referring to the case of Children in Conflict with Law (CICL), he had concluded: "11. The learned Children’s Court mis-appreciated the provision of Section 104(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The aforementioned provision provides that without prejudice to the provision for appeal and revision, under the said Act, the Committee or Board may on an application received in this behalf amend any orders passed by itself, as to the institution to which a child is to be sent or as to the person under whose care or supervision a child is to be placed under the Act. Clause-(2) of Section 104 speaks about amendment of clerical and arithmetical mistake. 12. Second application filed by the petitioner was not an application for rectification of any clerical mistake. This was an application for declaring the petitioner as a juvenile. The said application is maintainable and the order passed by the Children’s Court in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024 is set aside. The CICL shall be tried in accordance with the provisions contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 13. The instant revision is accordingly, allowed on contest. There shall be however, no order as to cost." 

The second respondent was/is Munni Devi, wife of Satya Narayan Rai, Badka Chanda village, Koelwar, Bhojpur. The case arose out of a PS. case 2022 Thana-Ara Nagar, Bhojpur.

This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated October 1, 2024 passed by the First Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Bhojpur at Ara in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024, whereby the Court of Appeal set aside the order dated May 1, 2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in a J.J.B. case of 2023. The revision petition had challenged the order dated October 1, 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2024.

The Ara Town P.S. case of 2022 was registered on the basis of Fardbeyan of one Ramadhar Rai, which was recorded by the S.H.O. of Ara Town police station on July 17, 2020 at around 5:00 a.m., the informant went to the house of his step mother, namely, Sumitra Devi. As soon as he reached in front of the door of the house of Sumitra Devi, he found blood sipping out from beneath the door. Immediately he opened the gate and found dead-body of his step mother having bleeding injury on her body. He also found the dead-body of Ram Awadhesh Rai @ Munna lying on the bed having fetal injury on his abdomen. It appeared to the informant that both of them were shot dead then he rushed to call Premchand Rai, brother of Sumitra Devi, who used to reside in the neighborhood some other people also rushed to the place of occurrence and gathered on the basis of the said statement, police registered Ara Town P.S. case of 2022 dated July 17, 2020 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 

During investigation, the Investigating Officer suspected the informant, his son Gautam Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Bittu @ Arbaaz Khan as the perpetrated of the offence. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against Gautam Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Bittu @ Arbaaz Khan while the investigation was kept pending against the informant Ramadhar Rai, Nikhil Kumar and Vikas Kumar.

The petitioner had filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara claiming himself to be a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for further consideration. Initially the Board by an order dated December 14, 2022 rejected the petition filed by the CICL holding, inter-alia-that the plea of juvenility by the petitioner was wrong and concocted. The petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the said order. The petitioner filed a second petition on July 15, 2023 with similar prayer along with Admit Card, Mark-sheet,
Registration Receipt issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and Transfer Certificate issued by the R.N. High School, Birampur, Bhojpur and also his Aadhar Card. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioner claimed that on the date of occurrence he was aged about 16 years 03 months and 29 days as his date of birth was March 12, 2006. The Juvenile Justice Board on verification of those documents under the provision of Section 94(2) of the said Act held the petitioner as a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. Against the said order, one Munni Devi daughter of deceased Sumitra Devi preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, 1st Court-cum-Children Court at Ara, which was registered as Criminal Appeal
No.31 of 2024. The Trial Judge had allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated May 1, 2024 holding, inter-alia, that Section 104 of the said Act does not contemplate for a review of the earlier order of the Board and the Board has no jurisdiction to pass subsequent order dated May 1, 2024 declaring the CICL as juvenile. 

The petitioner's Advocate submitted that the CICL did not seek for review, the subsequent petition filed on behalf of the CICL was indeed an application under Section 9(2) of the said Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara and the Chief Judicial Magistrate referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal. He also submitted that Section 9(2) of the said Act authorizes a CICL to raise claim of juvenility at any stage and whenever this plea is taken, it is the duty of the Court to direct the Board to conduct a fair and proper inquiry to ascertain the truth by examining the correctness of the documents or certificates or materials produced before the Court. Initially, the CICL could not produce enough document to prove that he was juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offence, subsequent application was filed on the basis of additional documents, viz. Matriculation certificate, Admit Card issued by the Bihar Secondary Board of Education, Transfer Certificate, Aadhar Card etc. On the basis of said document, the Board had power to pass fresh judgment declaring the CICL as a juvenile on the date of commission of offence. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2023) 15 SCC 683 and Rahul Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2739.

Now the matter is before the Supreme Court.