Patna High Court
Priya Ranjan Raj @ Priya Ranjan Kumar @ … vs The State Of Bihar on 16 February, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.1026 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2021 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali
======================================================
XXXX
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rishikesh Mukul S/O Arjun Singh R/O Kharauna, P.S. - Lalganj, Dist. -
Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
Present learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State. However, there is no representation
on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though service was declared
upon opposite party no. 2 on the last date of hearing.
2. From perusal of record, it transpires that in the
revision petition, the identity details of the Juvenile is being
disclosed, which is against the statutory provisions prescribed
under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 which mandates protection of disclosure of
identity of the juvenile in conflict with law. Therefore, the
identity of the petitioner is being referred to in the cause title as
XXXX.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
2/9
3. Registry while uploading the order on the website
shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar
manner.
4. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed
for setting aside the judgment/order dated 11.07.2025 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge
Children Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Appeal No. 09
of 2025, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court
dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 24.04.2025
passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Vaishali at Hajipur in
JJB Case No. 750 of 2022 arising out of Lalganj P.S. Case No.
388 of 2021 registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal
Code and, later on, substituted Sections 395 and 412 of IPC, by
which the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner/child in
conflict with law (for short 'CICL') has been rejected.
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that 3-4
miscreants riding three bikes pushed the bike of the
informant/opposite party no. 2 and when he fell down, the
miscreants snatched two mobile phones, two gold rings along
with a bag containing Aadhar Card, Pan Card, Identity Card,
ATM Card, Credit Card and other documents from the
informant apart from his motorcycle and fled away from the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
3/9
spot. The name of the petitioner, who is the CICL, transpired
during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused,
Pankaj Kumar, for being involved in the alleged occurrence.
The CICL moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Vaishali at Hajipur for grant of bail but his prayer was rejected
vide order dated 24.04.2025. The CICL preferred an appeal
which also came to be dismissed vide judgment/order dated
11.07.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Vaishali at Hajipur. The
CICL approached this Court against the aforesaid two orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner/CICL submits that the age of petitioner was assessed
to be 16 years 08 months and 21 days on the day of occurrence
and, as such, he was declared juvenile by the learned J.J. Board,
Vaishali at Hajipur vide order dated 10.01.2025. Learned
counsel further submits that the learned District Courts have not
considered the best interest of the CICL while rejecting his
prayer for bail. Only on the ground that there was likelihood of
petitioner falling in a bad company, the prayer for bail was
rejected. There is no material on record to show that there was
any likelihood of petitioner coming into association with any
known criminal or his release would expose him to moral,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
4/9
physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the
ends of justice. Learned counsel further submits that, moreover,
the petitioner has been made accused for the offences under
Sections 395 and 412 of IPC but no recovery has been shown
from the petitioner and nothing incriminating has been
recovered from his person or possession. Learned counsel
further submits that the CICL is in observation home since
20.09.2024. Learned counsel further submits that keeping the
petitioner in observation home would not serve any useful
purpose and would not help in his proper development
considering his age and it is not in the best interest of the
petitioner who is CICL. Thus, the learned counsel submits that
the order dated 24.04.2025 of the learned J. J. Board, Vaishali at
Hajipur as well as order dated 11.07.2025 of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children
Court), Vaishali at Hajipur may be set aside.
7. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the
petitioner/CICL is having antecedent of two cases and it shows
the apprehension of learned J.J. Board and the learned appellate
court is correct about petitioner again falling in bad company.
Learned APP further submits that it has also come on record
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
5/9
that father of the CICL is no more and the petitioner’s mother
has not been able to control him. Therefore, there is every
chance that the petitioner would fall in bad company and his
release would likely to bring him into association with any
known criminal and the same is against the safety of the CICL.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
9. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides as under:-
“Section 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
persons 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 sub-
section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the
police station, such officer shall cause the
person to be kept only in an observation home
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
6/9
[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.”
10. The aforesaid provision makes it 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 not be denied to a CICL. But the
best interests and welfare of a child are of paramount
importance.
11. Further, the JJ Act is, in fact, child friendly. The central
theme is that the interest of child is supreme. Section 3 of the JJ
Act incorporates the general principles to be followed in the
administration of the Act. According to which, “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. In fact, Section 3(iv) of the JJ Act
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
7/9
provides for the principle of best interest and for 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. Section 3(xii) of the JJ Act makes it
abundantly clear that a child shall be placed in institutional care
as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry. Section
3(xiii) of the JJ Act provides for Principle of repatriation and
restoration which reads as follows:
“Every child in the juvenile justice system
shall have the right to be re-united 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.”
12. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions show
the CICL should 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. In the orders impugned, except for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
8/9
bland assertion that there was likelihood of petitioner coming
into bad company, no material has come on record to show the
basis of such reasoning except saying that the social
investigation report of CICL mentions about death of father of
petitioner and one criminal antecedent of the petitioner.
13. However, considering the fact that the Courts are
bound to see that the interest of the CICL is protected at any
cost. The CICL is in observation home since 20.09.2024 and his
best interest is paramount importance. For reformatory measures
and rehabilitation and to protect the best interest of the child, the
best place could be the house of the child and keeping such
CICL in observation home would frustrate the provision of the
J.J. Act. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the learned
District Courts are not sustainable and hence, the impugned
order dated 24.04.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Vaishali at Hajipur in JJB Case No. 750 of 2022 arising
out of Lalganj P.S. Case No. 388 of 2021 and the
judgment/order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children
Court), Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2025,
are hereby set aside.
14. Let the petitioner, a child in conflict with law, be
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1026 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
9/9
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Vaishali at
Hajipur/concerned court in connection with JJB Case No. 750 of
2022 arising out of Lalganj P.S. Case No. 388 of 2021, subject
to the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be the parents of
the petitioner and other bailor will also be
relative of the petitioner having no
criminal antecedent and shall give
undertaking that he/she shall keep proper
care and upkeep of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain present
before the Board on each and every date of
trial of the case fixed by the Board.
15. Accordingly, the present revision petition is
allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.02.2026 Transmission 18.02.2026 Date
