Juvenile Institutionalization Should Be The Last Resort; Family Is The Best Institution For Rehabilitation: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that institutionalization should be a measure of last resort and that the family is the primary institution for the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child in conflict with the law. It thus set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, ruling that the juvenile justice system is reformatory, not punitive.Justice Jitendra Kumar,...
The Patna High Court has held that institutionalization should be a measure of last resort and that the family is the primary institution for the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child in conflict with the law.
It thus set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, ruling that the juvenile justice system is reformatory, not punitive.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the judgment, stated, “Reformatory or Observation Home is one of the measures contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or foster parents of the child, and it has been contemplated that every child in conflict with law has the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law has been contemplated as the last resort.”
The above ruling was delivered in a Criminal Revision petition arising out of a Criminal Appeal which challenged the order of the Special Children Court that upheld the Juvenile Justice Board's decision to deny bail to the petitioner.
According to the prosecution, the informant's son, Rahul Kumar, received a phone call on July 19, 2022, at around 2:45 PM from one of the accused and went to meet him. Shortly thereafter, he was found lying unconscious with gunshot injuries near Banke Rai Kucha, bleeding from his back. He was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. The informant alleged that her son was killed under a conspiracy hatched by Amit Kumar Pandey @ Golu and the petitioner, along with others.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the rejection of bail was based on irrelevant considerations and conjectures. It was submitted that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, belonged to an educated family, and had no established link with criminal elements. The defense contended that the Special Children Court had erred in presuming a likelihood of reoffending without any material evidence.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail plea, arguing that the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and had been in the company of individuals with criminal backgrounds. The State contended that granting bail might expose the petitioner to further criminal activities.
The court held that the grounds for denial under Section 12(1) were not met in this case, and further clarified, “From perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it clearly emerges that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force. It further emerges that as per Section 12 of the Act, bail to the Juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception and Juvenile can be denied bail only on the following grounds: (i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or (ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of justice.”
The court further ruled that none of these conditions were fulfilled in this case, as the Social Investigation Report by the Probation Officer did not indicate a criminal background within the petitioner's immediate family. The court emphasized, “There is no material on record to show that on release on bail, the petitioner may come into contact with criminals. … The finding of the Court below that on release on bail, the petitioner may come into contact with criminals is totally unfounded.”
Addressing the Special Children Court's reasoning that bail would not be in the juvenile's best interest, the High Court rejected the view, holding: “Reformation, development, reintegration and rehabilitation of the child is the main object of the Act and family of the petitioner is considered better than any other institution to take care and protection of the child to ensure his development and rehabilitation. Who can think and act better than the parents of the child about the welfare of the child?”
Setting aside the order of the Special Children Court, the Patna High Court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000. The petitioner's father was also required to submit an affidavit ensuring that the child stays away from criminal influences, continues his education, and appears before the Juvenile Justice Board as required.
Case Title: Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs The State of Bihar
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 12
