Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar allowed a criminal appeal and set aside an order of the Children Court which had rejected a juvenile’s bail application. The Court directed the appellant’s release on bail, noting that "no ground is made out to deny bail" under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. The bench ordered the juvenile’s father to furnish a bail bond and submit an undertaking to ensure the appellant avoids contact with criminals and continues his education. The Court held that the Children Court’s findings were contrary to the Social Investigation Report and unsupported by material on record.

The case arose from an incident reported on 7 September 2023, in which the informant alleged that her three-year-old daughter had been enticed to the appellant’s house on 4 September 2023 and subjected to sexual assault. The informant claimed that the victim returned crying and stated that the appellant had undressed her. Blood stains were reportedly observed on her clothes. Based on the report, Mahila P.S. Case No. 27 of 2023 was registered for offences under Sections 342, 363, 366(A), 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 342, 363, 366(A), 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Father’s POCSO Conviction And Life Sentence | Says Incestuous Sexual Violence By Parent Warrants Severest Punishment

The appellant claimed juvenility and was found by the Juvenile Justice Board to be 17 years and 17 days old at the time of the incident. A preliminary assessment held him physically and mentally competent to understand the consequences of the alleged offence, and the matter was transferred to the Children Court under Section 18(3) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The Children Court rejected the bail application on 16 April 2024, citing the likelihood of the juvenile coming into association with criminals, the heinous nature of the offence, and potential moral, physical, and psychological danger.

The appellant appealed, contending false implication due to enmity and a land dispute, and pointing to a delay of three days in lodging the FIR. It was argued that the medico-legal examination found the victim's hymen intact, no spermatozoa present, and no scientific evidence connecting him to the offence. The appellant stressed that under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, bail to juveniles is a rule, and denial is an exception. He relied on multiple precedents including Lalu Kumar @ Lal Babu v. State of Bihar (2019), Biswajit Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar (2024), and others.

The State and the informant opposed the bail, asserting that the juvenile committed a heinous offence against a minor child, supported by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. They argued that juveniles aged 16-18 accused of heinous offences are not entitled to bail under Section 12 J.J. Act and that trial was ongoing with the victim yet to testify.

Justice Jitendra Kumar examined Section 12 of the J.J. Act, noting that it overrides the Cr.P.C. and mandates bail for juveniles unless reasonable grounds exist to believe that release will lead to association with known criminals, exposure to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The Court recorded: "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." It further observed that the "ends of justice" must be understood in the context of reform and rehabilitation, not punishment.

The Court stated: "No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society." It held that institutionalisation is a last resort and that the family is the primary institution for care and protection.

Upon reviewing the Social Investigation Report, the Court found no evidence supporting the Children Court’s conclusions. The report indicated that the appellant belonged to an educated joint family, maintained good conduct, avoided bad habits, and was positively regarded by neighbours. It also recorded allegations of false implication due to prior enmity. The Court stated: "No one can say that atmosphere of the Appellant at his home is not conducive for his development and rehabilitation."

Also Read: S.22 BNS | “Erratic Behaviour, Classic Signs Of Psychotic Disorder”: Chhattisgarh HC Overturns Murder Conviction Due To Accused’s Unsound Mind

The Court also found no material to suggest the appellant would associate with known criminals or face danger upon release, nor that release would defeat the ends of justice. Instead, it noted that continued detention was disrupting his studies and rehabilitation.

The Court set aside the Children Court’s order and allowed the appeal, stating: "Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the Appellant to be released on bail." The release was made conditional on the appellant’s father furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and submitting an affidavit undertaking that the appellant would avoid contact with criminals, continue his studies, and attend court as required. The father was directed to ensure the appellant’s educational and developmental needs were met.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP

For the Respondent: Ms. Smiti Bharti, Advocate 

Case Title: XXX v The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2609 of 2024

Bench: Justice Jitendra Kumar