“An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social reintegration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and institutions and bodies established, hereinunder and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
-Preamble to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015
In CICL-X vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 21-page long judgement dated October 26, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"I find that learned Children Court has misconceived motion of ends of justice under the J.J. Act, because under the J.J. Act, meaning and import of ends of justice is different from one under the general criminal justice. If the detention of the appellant at the observation home ensures better reformation and development of the juvenile in conflict with law, it may be called that release of the appellant on bail would defeat the ends of justice. But there is no such facts and circumstances in the case on hand. 33. As such, I find that none of the grounds for rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 12 of J.J. Act is sustainable in the eye of law. 34. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, directing the appellant to be released on bail, subject to furnishing the bail bond of Rs.10,000/- and undertaking by his Father by way of affidavit that he would keep vigil on the appellant regarding his habits and he would not allow the appellant to come in contact with any criminal persons and take care of the developmental needs of the appellant and the appellant would attend the Court as and when required or directed. He will also ensure that he does not get involved in the commission of any offense. 35. The Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment." J.J. Act refers to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. Advocate Gopal Krishna is the counsel of the appellant.
Sailendra Kumar Panda is posted as District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ara since March 20, 2025. Prior to this posting he was District and Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram, P.O., Exclusive Special Excise Court, Sasaram and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barh.
The appellant was accused of offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS. Justice Kumar noted that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused. Besides the confessional statement, there was no other material against the appellant on record. As per Social Investigation Report (S.I.R.), the appellant belongs to a very poor family and his father is a mason and he himself works as a labour in cotton mills. However, he passed matriculation in first class and also passed intermediate examination in second class and thereafter, he was not continuing his education. He had two criminal antecedents of similar nature. However, both the cases were pending and in neither of them, he has been convicted so far. The Children Court had rejected the regular bail application of the appellant under Section 12 of the J.J. Act on account of the view that there was strong possibility that on release of the appellant on bail, he will come into association with known criminal friends. However, as per the S.I.R., there was no finding in any report suggesting that he was in association with any criminal friends or any criminal gang. As per Children Court, the release of the appellant on bail may expose him to moral and psychological danger, but there was no such report in the S.I.R. The Children court was also of the view that the release of the appellant on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
The appeal was preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated February 26, 2026, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Bhojpur at Ara in Special Children Case No. 01 of 2026, arising out of Koilwar P.S. Case No. 204 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS, whereby Children Court rejected the regular bail application of the appellant under Section 12 of the J.J. Act holding that on release of the appellant on bail, there is strong possibility of his coming into association with his known criminal friends. It was also held by Children Court that release of the appellant shall expose him to moral and psychological danger and it would also defeat the ends of justice.
The case pertains to an offence of robbery on September 1, 2025 at Sakaiddi-Brahm Sthan-Pachaina Road (100 meters prior to Brahm Sthan) registered against four unknown persons, who snatched jewellery and mobile of Karun Kumar Karin and ran away towards Pachaina, Koilwar.
As per prosecution case, Karun Kumar Karun alias Munnaji (54), s/o Satyanand Sah, the informant from Mahui Balha, Koilwar is a jewellery shopkeeper in Ramesh Ji's Market, Jamalpur Bazar and he was coming from Ara after purchasing some jewellery. When he was on way, he was intercepted by four persons riding two motorcycles and showing the threat of pistol, he was abused and jewellery made of gold and mobile were snatched by them and thereafter they fled away. The appellant has two other criminal antecedents bearing Ara Nagar P.S. Case No. 489 of 2025 and Gidha P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025, both registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023, in which the appellant was on bail 9. Before I consider the rival submission of the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which deals with bail to the Juvenile. Narrottam Chandra, the SHO, Koilwar P.S. who registered the case is also the I.O. of the case.
Section 12 of the Act reads: “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home ¹[or a place of safety, as the case may be,] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.”
From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 or any other law for time being in force. It further emerges that as per Section 12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception and Juvenile can be denied bail only on the following three grounds: (i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal, or, (ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of justice.
Justice Kumar drew on the decision of the Supreme Court in Juvenile in Conflict with Law vs. State of Rajasthan, as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5297, wherein, it has been held that juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail unless the proviso is applicable and there must be clear finding regarding the applicability of the proviso. The relevant part of judgment reads:"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail with or without surety or placed under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person unless proviso is applicable. 7.We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law.........................................................................................9.Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to sub- Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for last one year. 10.Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 11.We direct that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail without surety. However, the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board shall issue appropriate directions to the jurisdictional Probation Officer to keep the juvenile under supervision and to submit periodical reports to the Board about the conduct of the Juvenile."
Justice Kumar's judgement referred to Supreme Court's decision in Re-Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of T.N. vs. Union of Indian and Ors. as reported in (2020) 14 SCC 327, wherein, it has held that bail to a juvenile can be denied only on three grounds as provided in the Proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The relevant part of the judgment reads: "7. Sub-section (1) makes it absolutely clear that a child alleged to be in conflict with law should be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The only embargo created is that in case the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied for reasons to be recorded in writing. Even if bail is not granted, the child cannot be kept in jail or police lock-up and has to be kept in an observation home or place of safety."
Justice Kumar's verdict drew on the decision of the Bombay High Court in XYZ vs. State of Maharashtra, as reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2790, wherein, it has held that grounds for denial of bail must be based on material. The relevant part of judgment reads: "6.The mandate of the aforesaid provisions requires that the CCL alleged to have committed a bailable or non bailable offence and apprehended, shall be release on bail with or without surety. The proviso to Section 12(1) puts an exception, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release of CCL is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or exposed him to moral, physical or sociological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is therefore, evident that the denial of bail to the CCL shall be for specific reasons akin to above proviso. ………………………………………………………...9. There is nothing on record to indicate that the CCL is likely to come in association with the known criminals or get exposed to moral, physical or sociological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. In the wake of aforesaid circumstances the case is made out to allow this Revision Application and to release the CCL on bail by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Beed. Hence following order:"
Justice Kumar observed: "14. It also emerges that 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 the child who is 16 years or above 16 years of age 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. (Also refer to Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu Vs. State of Bihar, 2019 (6) BLJ 2016)."
In the penultimate paragraph of the judgement, Justice Kumar observed:"Summary of the legal Provisions 27. Hence, it is clearly found that notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure or any other law for time being in force, bail to a juvenile in conflict with law is governed by Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015. 27(1). Section 12 of the J.J. Act is equally applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature. Even a juvenile, aged between 16 to 18 years and being accused of heinous offence and being tried by Children Court, is entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. 27(2). The nature and seriousness of the alleged offence is not relevant for consideration of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act. 27(3). “The ends of justice” as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act is drastically different to one as used in general criminal jurisprudence. If the detention of the juvenile at Observation Home or other institutions as contemplated under the J.J. Act is helpful in protection, development and rehabilitation of the juvenile, only then it can be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice. 27(4). The family of the child in conflict with law is the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the J.J.Act. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law is the last resort and every child in conflict with law has right to be reunited with his family at the earliest. 27(5). Under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail to a juvenile is a rule and the refusal of the same is an exception and it can be denied only on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015. 27(6). The denial of bail must be reasoned and the grounds of denial must be based on relevant facts and circumstances, as emerging from the material on record. Social Investigation Report is one of the most important such material. Perusal of such report is mandatory as per Section 15 (2) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The Board/Court is required to know not only about the offence committed by the juvenile but even about the socio-economic conditions/circumstances under which the offence was committed, so that, appropriate order in regard to the juvenile in conflict with law could be passed with intent to reform and rehabilitate the juvenile and reintegrate him with the mainstream of the society. 27(7). All resources have to be mobilized including those of the family and the community for reforming and rehabilitating the juvenile in conflict with law to make him productive member of the society. (Refer to Section 3 (vii) of the J.J. Act, 2015.)"
The Juvenile Justice Act requires that all decisions regarding the child under the Act are based on primary consideration of the best interest of the child. Any juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to get released on bail irrespective of nature of the offence. Bail could be denied to him only on the grounds as provided in the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act., 2015. The intention of the legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him.
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna, Amicus Curiae of the High Court in the special courts/special laws case observed: "The Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, Bhojpur at Ara could not appreciate the intention of the legislature and the language of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, which is unambiguous. The bail can be denied only in the case where there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice. Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or any other law for time being in force. Justice Kumar has detected fatal errors in the trial court's order- the appellant was not named in the F.I.R., his name emerged in the confessional statement of co-accused, there was no other material against the appellant on record, and the Social Investigation Report (S.I.R.) did not contain any no finding in any report suggesting that he was in association with any criminal friends or any criminal gang. Although the accused had two criminal antecedents of similar nature, both the cases were pending and in neither of them, he has been convicted as yet."
