The Patna High Court granted bail to a 14-year-old boy accused in a POCSO case, holding institutional care should be a last resort. Justice Arun Kumar Jha said bail cannot be denied to a child in conflict with law without statutory grounds under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Asserting that placing children in institutional care must be used only as a last resort, the Patna High Court granted bail to a 14-year-old boy accused in a POCSO case. The Court reasoned that keeping the child in an observation home would undermine the reformative objective of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Justice Arun Kumar Jha set aside the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Patna, as well as the appellate court, which had both refused bail to the child in conflict with law (CICL) in a matter arising from the Kadamkuan Police Station, Patna.
The child was booked under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The allegations were that he raped the minor daughter of the informant. Per the case record, the boy was 14 years, 9 months, and 5 days old on the date of the incident, and the JJB declared him a juvenile in January 2025. He has been lodged in an observation home since October 14, 2024.
Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that there were contradictions between the FIR and the victim’s subsequent statement particularly that the reported place of occurrence changed from a “park” to a “park road”. It was further submitted that the Social Investigation Report had been accepted by the courts below in a mechanical manner, without any supporting material. The report allegedly stated that there was a lack of control and discipline in the child’s family and that the home environment was not suitable for his upbringing, but the petitioner maintained that nothing on record substantiated these conclusions.
The State opposed the bail request, citing the seriousness of the allegations and relying on the Social Investigation Report to contend that release would not serve the child’s best interests.
The High Court, however, reiterated that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 follows a child-centred and reformative approach. Referring to Section 12 of the Act, the Court explained that bail to a CICL can be denied only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would either bring the child into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical, or psychological harm, or defeat the ends of justice.
The Court held,
“The aforesaid provision makes it clear that a CICL could be denied bail only on the ground that on release, the said child would come in contact with criminal elements or there was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL or would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could not be denied to a CICL,”
The Bench also underscored the guiding principles of the Juvenile Justice framework, including the best interest of the child and the mandate that institutional care must be employed only as a last resort. Noting the child-friendly nature of the legislation, the Court remarked, “The central theme is that the interest of child is supreme.“
The Court further found that the reliance placed on the Social Investigation Report was misplaced. It observed that although the report mentioned a lack of discipline in the family, it failed to set out any material showing how such conclusions were reached. Emphasising that the child’s welfare was paramount, the Court held that rehabilitation and reformation would be better supported within a family environment.
The Court said,
“For reformatory measures and rehabilitation and to protect the best interest of the child, the best place could be the house of the child and keeping such CICL in observation home would frustrate the provision of the J.J. Act,”
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the juvenile be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties. One surety must be a parent, and the other must be a relative without criminal antecedents, who must undertake responsibility for the child’s proper care and upbringing. The Court also directed that the juvenile must remain present before the Juvenile Justice Board on every date fixed in the case.
Case Title: XXX (through his father Ajay Kumar) v. State of Bihar