Introduction:

In the case of Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar [2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 17], the Patna High Court reaffirmed the principle that institutionalisation should be the last resort in juvenile justice cases, emphasizing the family as the primary rehabilitative environment. The Court set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, ruling that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is reformatory rather than punitive. Justice Jitendra Kumar delivered the judgment, stating that the legislative intent behind the Act prioritizes reintegration into familial care over institutional confinement. The ruling arose from a Criminal Revision petition that challenged the Special Children Court’s decision, which upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s denial of bail to the petitioner.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The prosecution contended that the petitioner was involved in the murder of Rahul Kumar, who had been lured by a phone call and later found with gunshot injuries. The informant alleged a conspiracy involving the petitioner and co-accused Amit Kumar Pandey @ Golu. The State opposed bail, arguing that the juvenile was associated with individuals of criminal background, and his release could expose him to further delinquency. In contrast, the defence argued that the denial of bail was based on conjectures rather than evidence. The petitioner had no prior criminal record and belonged to an educated family. It was also submitted that the Special Children Court erroneously presumed a likelihood of reoffending without substantial proof. The defence emphasized that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act overrides general bail provisions and establishes bail as the rule rather than the exception.

Court’s Judgment:

The Court ruled that none of the exceptions under Section 12(1) of the Act were satisfied in this case. It observed that bail can be denied only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release would lead to association with known criminals, expose the juvenile to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The Court found no material evidence to substantiate such claims, as the Social Investigation Report did not indicate criminal tendencies within the petitioner’s family. The High Court emphasized that reformation, reintegration, and rehabilitation are the primary objectives of the Act, and the family is best suited to ensure a child’s development and protection. It rejected the Special Children Court’s reasoning that bail was not in the juvenile’s best interest, holding that parents are better positioned to guide and protect their child. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000. Additionally, the petitioner’s father was required to submit an affidavit ensuring that the child stays away from criminal influences, continues his education, and complies with the Juvenile Justice Board’s directives.