Pendency Of Multiple Cases Does Not Make Juvenile Incorrigible For Reform: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court recently ruled that the mere pendency of cases is insufficient to label a juvenile as incorrigible or unfit for reformation.A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the trial court, which had affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner.According to the prosecution,...
The Patna High Court recently ruled that the mere pendency of cases is insufficient to label a juvenile as incorrigible or unfit for reformation.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the trial court, which had affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner.
According to the prosecution, the informant saw the petitioner riding a motorcycle and taking a U-turn on spotting the police. He was apprehended immediately. A search reportedly led to the recovery of a loaded country-made katta, one live cartridge, and a white motorcycle with no number plate. The petitioner was later declared a child in conflict with law by the Juvenile Justice Board.
A bail application filed before the Board was rejected, and the appeal against that decision was dismissed by the trial court, resulting in the present revision. The petitioner had admittedly been in custody since 28.11.2024, and though he was shown as an accused in four cases, his name surfaced in all of them only after his apprehension in the present matter. The High Court noted that the primary basis for denying bail was the apprehension that the child might again fall into the company of “bad elements,” and that a suspicion had been raised that he was being used by a “gang”.
The High Court referred to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It noted that the bail inquiry must focus on the best interest of the child, and that the gravity or nature of the offence was irrelevant for deciding bail. The only consideration to be taken into account was whether the release of the juvenile would place the child in danger, bring him into contact with known criminals, or defeat the ends of justice. The Court found that none of these grounds were made out in the present case. The High Court read Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act along with Section 12 and held:
“10…The cumulative reading of these two provisions makes it amply clear that it is the interest of the child which is paramount and orders of the Court should be towards this end only. If the father of the petitioner/child in conflict with law undertakes that he will look after the petitioner and would not allow him to fall in bad company, the release of the petitioner could be considered under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as there are no other hindrances.”
The High Court specifically noted that the mere pendency of cases against the petitioner does not create a presumption that he has become incorrigible, and held:
“11. Merely because petitioner has been made accused in four cases, it cannot be presumed that he has become incorrigible and is not amenable to reformatory steps. Moreover the main purpose of enactment of Juvenile Justice Act, is the reformation of children in conflict with law. Therefore, the petitioner could be given an opportunity to join the mainstream.”
Eventually, the High Court allowed the revision petition, and granted bail to the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 820 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Bhola Prasad appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. Shailendra Kumar appeared for the State.