Patna High Court: In a Criminal Appeal filed by the juvenile-appellant against the order passed by the Children Court, rejecting his bail application, a single-judge bench of Jitendra Kumar, J., while setting aside the Children Court’s order held that the serious nature of offence is not a valid ground for denying bail to Juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’). The Court emphasised that the JJ Act’s primary objective is the reformation and rehabilitation of children in conflict with law, not their punishment.
BACKGROUND
As per the written report of the informant-wife, her husband had been missing since morning, and despite searches, no clue about his whereabouts was found. The informant later learned through hearsay that he was beaten by 4-5 persons and subsequently, his dead body was found in a pond. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was drowning.
A charge-sheet was submitted against 4-5 persons, including the appellant, for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The appellant was found to be 17 years, 5 months, and 24 days old and was declared a juvenile. However, a preliminary assessment dated 03-04-2024 found him to be an adult, and his case was transferred from the Juvenile Justice Board (‘JJB’) to the Children Court. The appellant was lodged in an Observation Home since 05-10-2023, having been in custody for approximately one year and seven months. The appellant had filed a bail petition before the Children Court, which was rejected by the order dated 22-05-2024. The appellant then filed the present appeal against the order dated 22-05-2024.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The Court perused Section 12 of the JJ Act, which deals with bail to juveniles and emphasised that,
“Section 12 overrides the bail provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), or any other law in force. Bail to the Juvenile is a rule, and refusal of the same is an exception. A juvenile can be denied bail only on three specific grounds: (i) if release is likely to bring the person into association with any known criminal; (ii) if it exposes the person to moral, physical, or psychological danger; or (iii) if the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. Further, 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 JJ 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 JJ Act. There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the JJ Act in regard to the grant of bail. Section 12 is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature.”
The Court noted that the ‘ends of justice’ as used in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the JJ Act is different from its use in penal statutes. The ‘ends of justice’ in the context of the JJ Act are ascertained based on the Act’s purpose and object, which is to reform and rehabilitate juveniles, not to punish them. The Court quoted the Preamble of the JJ Act, highlighting its focus on 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.
The Court noted that Section 3 of the JJ Act provides general principles to be followed, including the: Principle of best interest, Principle of safety, Positive measures and Principle of non-stigmatizing semantics. The Court stressed that the JJ Act is based on the belief that children are the future of society and should be reformed, not punished, as a punitive approach would be self-destructive. Keeping a child in custody is justified only if it aids their development, rehabilitation, or protection. Otherwise, their release would not defeat the ends of justice. The Court further noted that the family is considered the best and first desirable institution for a child’s care and protection, and institutionalization is the last resort, emphasizing the right of every child to be reunited with their family at the earliest. This principle is manifested in Section 3(v), (xii), and (xiii) of the JJ Act.
The Court concluded that Section 12 of the JJ Act is in consonance with the Act’s purpose and object, providing for mandatory bail unless the specific grounds in the proviso to Section 12(1) are present, to ensure early reunification with family and the child’s protection, development, reformation, and rehabilitation. Juveniles are not to be treated as adult offenders, and JJ Boards/Courts must adopt a different, sensible, and responsible approach focused on reformation, making them responsible and productive members of society.
The Court observed that the Children Court had rejected the bail application on two grounds: (i) the appellant’s alleged habit of intoxication as per the Social Investigation Report, and (ii) the serious nature of the alleged offence. The Court found both grounds unsustainable. The Court, after perusing the Social Investigation Report, noted that it showed no reference to the Appellant’s habit of intoxication. Moreover, as per law, the serious nature of the alleged offence is not a ground for denying bail to a juvenile in conflict with the law.
The Court observed that the appellant belongs to a poor family, works as a labourer, dropped out of school due to poverty, has no home or land, lives in a rented house, and belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community. Neither he nor his family has any criminal antecedent, and he bears good conduct. The death of the deceased was caused by drowning after consuming alcohol, and the case diary showed no cogent material or direct evidence against the appellant, who was not named in the FIR, beyond hearsay by the informant.
In light of the afore-stated circumstances, the Court found no reason to deny bail to the appellant, who should have been enlarged on bail in his best interest. The Court criticised the Children Court for acting irresponsibly by rejecting the bail of the appellant, stating that instead of rehabilitating the juvenile, it had further devastated his life, which is not expected of a Court acting under the JJ Act scheme.
The Court set aside the order dated 22-05-2024 and allowed the appeal. The appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 by his mother and an undertaking by her via affidavit that the appellant would not contact any criminal, would restart his education and his developmental needs would be taken care of, and he would attend the JJB and Courts as required.
The Court also issued directions to the District Legal Services Authority (‘DLSA’), to inquire whether the appellant has a ration card and, if not, to take steps to ensure he gets one. Further, directions were given to inquire if he is receiving grains from the Public Distribution System and, if not, to ensure he does. The DLSA was also directed to inquire about his eligibility for a home under a Government Scheme and to facilitate his admission into a local vocational training school. The District Magistrate was directed to cooperate and collaborate with the DLSA in these measures.
[Chandan Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.3293 of 2024, decided on 08-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Sheikh Arkan Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
