January 2026: In Md. Anwar @ Anwar vs. The State of Bihar and Rahmina Praween (2026), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 10-page long judgment dated January 6, 026, wherein, he set aside the judgment/order dated March 4, 2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court) Araria and order dated January 13, 2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with J.J.B. Case No.117 of 2024, which arose out of Araria Mahila PS Case No. 44 of 2024 for the offences under Section 341, 376, 313, 417/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Justice Jha concluded: "I am of the considered opinion that the child in conflict with law could be released on bail and accordingly petitioner/CICL be released on bail..."14.Accordingly, the Judgment/Order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court) Araria and order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria are set aside and hence, the present revision petition stands allowed."
The case leading to the institution of the petition was that Rahmina Praween, the opposite party no. 2 lodged a case vide Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024 with allegation that the while she was alone in her house, this petitioner forced upon her by gagging her mouth and later on gave her allurement of marriage. By giving this inducement of marriage, he kept on committing rape with her. When she became pregnant, the petitioner gave her some medication and her pregnancy was aborted by taking her to a doctor. The petitioner refused to marry the opposite party no. 2 and in panchayati the petitioner and his family members refused to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner/child in conflict with law (CICL) was taken in custody on October 17, 2024. The CICL moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria for grant of bail but his prayer was rejected and his petition for bail was dismissed vide order dated January 13, 2025. The CICL preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide order dated March 4, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (Children's Court) Araria. The CICL approached the High Court impugning the two orders. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case due to ill motive of the victim. The petitioner was declared juvenile vide order dated October 30, 2024 by the JJB Araria and the age of the petitioner was 12 years 06 months and 21 days on the date of occurrence and had got no criminal antecedent. The age of the victim is about 18 years. The counsel further submitted that the orders of the Courts below are bad in the eye of law as well as on facts. The Courts have not considered the false implication of the CICL and the fact that he was deprived of care and protection of his family by placing him in custody. There was no possibility of petitioner doing any harm to the victim or any of the witnesses. The Social Investigation Report and social background report did not make out any case to keep the CICL in custody. It was only mentioned that there was lack of discipline in the house and father of the CICL was a labourer. It was also mentioned that the CICL had studied up to Class V only. His friends were also illiterate. There was no chance of CICL falling in bad company and his family members did not have any criminal antecedent. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be released on bail after setting aside the impugned orders as both the Courts below passed erroneous orders.
Taking note of the provisions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Justice Jha observed that it is clear that "a CICL could be denied bail only on the ground that on release, the said child would come in contact with criminal elements and there was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL or would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could no be denied to a CICL."
Justice Jha drew on the relevant portion of Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides for the guiding principles of care and protection of children like (i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen years, (ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All human beings shall be treated with equal dignity and rights, (iii) Principle of participation: Every child shall have a right to be heard and to participate in all processes and decisions affecting his interest and the childs views shall be taken into consideration with due regard to the age and maturity of the child, (iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential, (v) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be, (vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care and protection system, and thereafter....,(viii) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are not to be used in the processes pertaining to a child....,(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry and (xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration: Every child in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and to be restored to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest..."
Justice Jha observed: "10. Cumulative reading of these two provisions show the CICL could be released on bail unless the fact comes on record that there was chance of such child coming in contact with a known criminal or enlarging such child on bail might endanger his moral, physical or psychological well being. Further the courts being parens patriae are supposed to look into for protection of best interest of the child. All such steps are to be taken by the Courts for reformation and rehabilitation of a child in conflict with law.11. In the facts of the present case, no doubt the alleged offence is very serious but the bail to a child in conflict with law could be denied only under specific circumstances as mentioned hereinbefore. Otherwise the bail is a rule and jail is an exception in case of CICL as well. The CICL has remained in custody since 17.10.2024 and now his parents are ready and willing to take care of him and to protect his best interest so that he does not fall in bad company or get involved in any other offence."
February 12, 2026: In Ankit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarthna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed a order dated February 12, 2026, wherein, it set aside the order by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court and granted leave granted. The appellant had challenged the order dated July 1, 2025 passed by Justice Singh. Apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 5140075250013/2025 registered at Women Police Station, District–Araria for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 69, 352, 351(3), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Justice Singh had rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations as against the appellant are not true; however, investigation as against him is on and he has cooperated with the investigation; that the Supreme Court by order dated July 21, 2025 had granted interim protection to the appellant herein. The order was made absolute by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Supreme Court observed:"Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 482 BNSS. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the order passed by the High Court. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail...."
March 11, 2026:
April 2026:
May 2026:
June 2026:
July 2026:
August 2026:
September 2026:
October 2026:
No comments:
Post a Comment