Recently, the Patna High Court found itself examining a sensitive dispute involving the bail rights of a child in conflict with law, after lower courts declined relief in a case linked to alleged weapon recovery and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS) and Arms Act,1959.
The case arose from allegations that a motorcycle rider attempted to flee on seeing a police team. The rider was apprehended, and a search allegedly led to the recovery of a loaded country-made weapon, a live cartridge, and a number-plate-less motorcycle. An FIR was filed under Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 21(1-b)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act. The Juvenile Justice Board later declared the accused a child in conflict with the law.
Attempts to secure bail before the Juvenile Justice Board and subsequently before the appellate court were rejected on the ground that the child was allegedly involved in multiple cases and might fall into “bad company” if released.
On revision, the Petitioner contended that the subordinate courts failed to consider the reformatory character of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 12, which begins with a non-obstante clause mandating bail except where release may expose the child to psychological, physical, or moral danger or bring them into association with known criminals. The counsel argued that the seizure witnesses were members of the same raiding party, that mandatory safeguards for seizure were not followed, and the inference of incorrigibility had no factual basis. The Petitioner further asserted that the child’s father had undertaken full responsibility and had already secured bail for him in other cases.
The State opposed the plea, relying on the Social Investigation Report, which classified the child as vulnerable and likely to rejoin undesirable elements, making bail contrary to his welfare.
The High Court, in its observations, emphasised that refusal of bail to juveniles must rest on concrete material and cannot be based on mere suspicion. It relied on Section 12 and the foundational principles under Section 3, including the presumption of innocence, the best-interest principle, family responsibility, and the principle of a fresh start. The Court noted that mere involvement in multiple cases post-arrest could not justify branding the child as “incorrigible” without substantive evidence.
In its final ruling, the Court set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court, holding that the child’s best interest required an opportunity for reintegration. Bail was granted on conditions, including supervision by the father and appearance before the Board on all dates.
Case Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj V. the State of Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Revision No.820 Of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Bhola Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent: P.P. Shailendra Kumar,
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
