The Patna High Court has refused bail to a juvenile accused of murder, holding that his release would defeat the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the appellant's father had six criminal antecedents, including the present murder case, while his uncles and cousins also had criminal antecedents, and that the Social Investigation Report found a “negative environment” in the family, which was of a “domineering/overbearing (dabang) nature”.

Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing an appeal against the order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the Children Court-cum-1st District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, rejecting the appellant's bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

The prosecution case was that on 24.03.2026, the victim, Hasan Raja Khan @ Aatif Khan, was returning from Sasaram with his friends when the appellant and six co-accused allegedly surrounded and assaulted him with lathis, dandas, bricks, an iron rod and a gadasa, resulting in his death.

The appellant's counsel submitted that he had been falsely implicated and that the informant, the victim's mother, was not an eyewitness and had based the FIR on information received from the victim's friends and villagers. It was also submitted that the CCTV footage relied upon by the Children Court was yet to be tested through forensic tools. The appellant was stated to have no criminal antecedents, while his mother also had none. His counsel submitted that his mother was willing to undertake responsibility for his studies and developmental needs.

The informant opposed bail, pointing to the criminal antecedents of the appellant's father and other close family members and the negative family environment reflected in the Social Investigation Report.

The Court noted that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act overrides the bail provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. It observed that under Section 12, bail to a juvenile is the rule and refusal is an exception, and bail can be denied only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with a known criminal, expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court further observed that the expression “ends of justice” under Section 12(1) has to be understood in light of the purpose and object of the Juvenile Justice Act, which is to reform and rehabilitate juveniles and not to punish them.

In the present case, the Court noted from the Probation Officer's report that the appellant was under the influence of a “daredevil approach” and was not mature. The Court also considered the CCTV report recorded in the case diary, according to which the appellant was seen dragging the deceased through the street. The Court noted that although the appellant and his mother had no criminal antecedents, there was nothing on record to show that the mother was financially independent and capable of providing a separate and independent conducive environment and necessary facilities for the appellant's proper reformation, development and rehabilitation.

The Court further noted that the appellant's father had six criminal antecedents, including the present murder case, and had not been granted bail in the present case. The Court also took note of the criminal antecedents of the appellant's uncles and cousins and the Social Investigation Report, and noted:

“It also transpires that other close family members of the Appellant- uncles and cousins have also got criminal antecedents and as per the Social Investigation Report, there is negative environment in the family of the Appellant and the family of the Appellant is also of domineering/overbearing (dabang) nature”

The Court held that releasing the appellant on regular bail to join his family “would adversely affect his reformatory and developmental process, and hence, his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice”.

The Court accordingly held that it would be better for the appellant to continue in the observation home for his reformatory and rehabilitative measures.

Cause Title: Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Bihar and Anr

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2289 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Syed Alamdar Hussain, Advocate; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Shahsi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate.

For the State: Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP.

For the Informant: Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate; Ms. Nandani Kumari, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order