Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court considered whether a juvenile accused in a murder case should be released on bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The petitioner (identity withheld under Section 74 of the Act) was a minor when implicated in a case of kidnapping and murder (IPC Sections 363, 365, and 302/34). He had been in an observation home since August 2019. His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Buxar, on 06.11.2019, and the rejection was upheld in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Buxar, on 12.12.2019.
The JJB and appellate court denied bail primarily because the offence was “heinous” and there was apprehension that releasing him might create discord in society and expose him to moral or psychological danger.
The High Court, however, emphasized the principles under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015:
- Bail is the rule, institutionalization is the last resort.
- The gravity or seriousness of the offence is not by itself a valid ground for rejecting bail.
- Bail can only be refused if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would (i) bring the juvenile in association with known criminals, (ii) expose him to moral/psychological danger, or (iii) defeat the ends of justice.
The Court noted that the lower courts had not provided any concrete reasons or evidence for denying bail. It also observed that a co-accused juvenile in the same case had already been granted bail earlier.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside both the JJB and appellate court’s orders and directed that the petitioner be released on bail with a bond of ₹10,000 and two sureties.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For juveniles in conflict with law: This ruling clarifies that bail is the default principle under the Juvenile Justice Act, regardless of the nature of the alleged offence.
- For families: It provides relief that a child cannot be kept in institutional custody merely because the charge is serious. Proper legal safeguards must be applied.
- For the justice system: The decision reinforces the rehabilitative and restorative focus of juvenile justice, rather than punitive measures.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Issue 1: Can bail be denied to a juvenile accused merely because the alleged offence is heinous?
Decision: No. The seriousness of the offence is irrelevant under Section 12 of the JJ Act. - Issue 2: What are the valid grounds for rejecting bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act?
Decision: Bail may be refused only if release (i) risks association with criminals, (ii) exposes the child to moral/psychological danger, or (iii) defeats justice. - Issue 3: Were the lower courts justified in denying bail?
Decision: No. They failed to assign valid reasons or evidence; hence, their orders were set aside.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Lalu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 (4) PLJR 833
- Co-accused’s bail order: Criminal Revision No. 1569 of 2019 (granted on 15.06.2020)
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Lalu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Division Bench)
Case Title
XX (Name Withheld as per Section 74 JJ Act) v. State of Bihar
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2020
(arising out of Dumraon P.S. Case No. 289 of 2019, District Buxar)
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 667
Coram and Names of Judges
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha — for the petitioner
- Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP — for the State
Link to Judgment
NyM1MCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-gD5eqw9kZoA=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
