Seriousness Of Offence Not Ground To Deny Bail To Juvenile, 'Ends Of Justice' Mean Development, Rehabilitation, Protection Of Child: Patna HC

The Patna High Court has reiterated that the involvement of a juvenile in an offense of serious nature is not, by itself, a ground for denying bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.

It thus overturned the order of the Children Court, which had rejected the bail petition of the appellant on the grounds that he was involved in a murder case, had bad company, and that his release would expose him to criminal influences and defeat the ends of justice.

Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “as per the statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents, I find that involvement of the appellant in offence of serious nature is no ground for denying bail to a juvenile … Moreover, the observation of learned court below that the appellant is associated with criminal activities and he has bad company is baseless. The Social Investigation Report does not show that the appellant was involved in any criminal activities prior to the present case.”

“Even finding of the Children Court that the release of the appellant would bring him into bad company is also unfounded. As per Social Investigation Report, I do not find that he was a member of any criminal gang and his release may bring him into company of that gang,” Justice Kumar added.

The above ruling was delivered in a Criminal Appeal arising from a case whereby the appellant, Rakesh Rai, was accused of being involved in a murder. As per the factual matrix, the case originated from a land dispute in Buxar, Bihar, where the informant alleged that a group of individuals, including the appellant, attacked him and his father with firearms. The father of the informant was shot and died on the spot, while the informant managed to escape. The appellant, initially treated as a juvenile, was later transferred to the Children Court for trial under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act after a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Begusarai.

The appellant had moved for regular bail before the Children Court, which rejected the plea, holding that the Social Investigation Report indicated a risk of association with criminal elements. The prosecution contended that the appellant had been actively involved in the crime, and that his release would be against the ends of justice. However, the defense argued that the JJ Act prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment and that the rejection of bail was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

The Court, while setting aside the order of the Children Court, referred to the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, and placed strong reliance on the precedent set in Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2024).

The Court further observed that the Children Court was 'misconceived' when it held that release of the appellant would defeat the ends of justice. “Perhaps, learned Court below has been swayed by the seriousness of the alleged offence of murder. But ends of justice in the context of J.J. Act is totally different. The purpose and object of the J.J. Act is to reform and rehabilitate the juveniles and not to punish them,” the Court stated

The Court held that if keeping the child in custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.

Moreover, the Court added, “the family is considered as the best and most desirable institution for ensuring welfare and rehabilitation of the child, if the family environment is conducive for the development of the child. In such situation, the release of the appellant on bail would serve and promote the ends of justice better than detaining the appellant in the observation home.”

Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the appellant, directing his parents to execute surety bonds of ₹10,000 each, with additional conditions. The parents were required to submit affidavits ensuring that the appellant would not associate with criminals and that he would receive vocational training. The Court further mandated that the appellant must attend proceedings before the JJB and other courts as required.

Case Title: Rakesh Rai vs The State of Bihar

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 13

Click Here To Download Judgement