‘Four Cases Don’t Make a Child Incorrigible’: Patna HC Grants Bail to Juvenile

The Patna High Court has held that a child in conflict with law cannot be branded “incorrigible” merely because he has been named in multiple criminal cases, setting aside the orders of the juvenile justice board and the appellate court that had denied him bail in an alleged firearms recovery case.

Court ordered the boy’s release after finding that the courts below’s inferences were unsupported by any concrete material.

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha noted that both courts below had relied on the number of cases pending against the juvenile to conclude that he was beyond reform and likely to associate with criminal elements, despite the absence of evidence establishing such a risk.

The High Court noted that the appellate court had described the child as “incorrigible” solely because his name appeared in four cases, all of which, according to the petitioner, surfaced only after his arrest in the present matter.

Court observed that this reasoning could not stand scrutiny. It held that the Juvenile Justice Act mandates a presumption of innocence, prioritises the child’s best interest, and requires that decisions be based on objective material rather than suspicion. Referring to the appellate court’s approach, the judge said explicitly that there was “no basis” for treating the juvenile as incorrigible.

Court also rejected the finding that the boy would necessarily fall into bad company if released, stating that such a conclusion must be grounded in “hard facts,” which were absent from the record. The suspicion noted in the social investigation report that the child may have been used by a gang was held insufficient to justify denial of bail without substantial supporting evidence.

Reiterating the statutory scheme under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the High Court said that bail is the rule for children, and refusal is permissible only on clearly established grounds such as exposure to danger or association with known criminals.

Merely being named in multiple FIRs does not, the court said, override the welfare-oriented framework of the Act. “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,” the court emphasised.

The petitioner had argued that the cases against him were all registered after his arrest in the present matter and that the courts below had overlooked his father’s undertaking to ensure the boy’s supervision and welfare. The State, however, relied on the social investigation report to oppose bail, maintaining that the risk of the juvenile returning to a harmful environment remained high. The High Court disagreed, holding that such conclusions were speculative and insufficient to override statutory protections.

Allowing the revision petition, court set aside the orders dated 22 April 2025 and 16 June 2025 of the juvenile justice board and the appellate court, and directed the release of the juvenile on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his father.

The child has been directed to remain present before the board on all dates fixed in the inquiry.

Case Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj @ Hunter Yadav

Order Date: November 18, 2025

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Jha