The Patna High Court has held that simply having multiple criminal cases pending against a juvenile does not justify treating him as incorrigible or unfit for reform. In a criminal revision petition, the Court set aside a trial court’s decision, which had upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s refusal to grant bail to a juvenile accused. The juvenile had been apprehended on suspicion of riding a motorcycle, making a U-turn upon seeing the police, and was found to be in conflict with law after the recovery of a country-made firearm, a live cartridge, and a motorcycle without a number plate. He was subsequently declared a child in conflict with law by the Juvenile Justice Board. Despite being in custody since November 2024 and being implicated in four cases, the Court noted that his involvement in those additional cases only arose after his arrest in the present matter, and that mere pendency of these cases was not sufficient to treat him as beyond reform.
The Bench, presided by Justice Arun Kumar Jha, carefully examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing that bail for a juvenile is the general rule and refusal is the exception. The Court held that the bail inquiry should primarily focus on the best interests of the child, rather than the grave nature of the alleged offence. It further explained that refusal of bail is justifiable only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that, upon release, the juvenile would associate with known criminals, be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would undermine the ends of justice. In the case at hand, the Court found that none of these conditions were made out.
Reading Section 12 alongside Section 3 of the Act, the Court underscored that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. It pointed out that if the juvenile’s father offered assurances that he would supervise him and prevent harmful associations, there was no legal barrier to granting bail. On that basis, the Court allowed the revision petition and released the juvenile on bail.
The Court was unequivocal that inclusion of the juvenile’s name in multiple legal proceedings does not automatically translate into incorrigibility. It rejected any presumption that the juvenile was beyond reform, underlining that the central purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act is rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The Court stated that denying bail based solely on the pendency of cases would run counter to this objective, as the law views juveniles as capable of transformation and deserving of a second chance.
Having concluded that the juvenile’s rehabilitation was feasible and that he deserved an opportunity to “join the mainstream,” the High Court granted him bail, thereby enabling him to resume life outside institutional custody under conditions that promote reform rather than punishment.
Case Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 820 of 2025.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.