Should Children Accused Of Crimes Stay In Observation Homes? Patna High Court Says Home Is Better For Reform

Justice Arun Kumar Jha set aside orders of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Patna and the appellate court, both of which had refused bail to the child in conflict with law (CICL) in a case arising out of Kadamkuan Police Station in Patna.

The juvenile was booked under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on allegations that he had raped the informant's minor daughter.

According to the records, the boy was 14 years, 9 months and 5 days old on the date of the alleged incident and was declared a juvenile by the JJB in January 2025. He had been lodged in an observation home since October 14, 2024.

Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR and the victim's subsequent statement contained contradictions, including a change in the place of occurrence from a "park" to a "park road". It was also argued that the Social Investigation Report had been mechanically relied upon by the courts below without any supporting material.

The report had stated that there was a lack of control and discipline in the child's family and that the home environment was not conducive to his upbringing. The petitioner, however, contended that there was nothing on record to substantiate such conclusions.

The State opposed the plea, pointing to the seriousness of the allegations and relying on the Social Investigation Report to argue that releasing the child would not be in his best interests.

The High Court, however, reiterated that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 adopts a child-centric and reformative approach.

Referring to Section 12 of the Act, the Court observed that bail to a child in conflict with law can be denied only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the child into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

"The aforesaid provision makes it clear that a CICL could be denied bail only on the ground that on release, the said child would come in contact with criminal elements or there was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL or would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could not be denied to a CICL," the Court said.

The Bench also highlighted the principles embedded in the Juvenile Justice Act, including the principle of best interest and the requirement that institutional care be used only as a last resort.

Observing that the legislation is fundamentally child-friendly, the Court said, "The central theme is that the interest of child is supreme."

Importantly, the Court found the reliance placed on the Social Investigation Report to be misplaced. It noted that while the report referred to a lack of discipline in the family, it did not discuss any material on the basis of which such conclusions had been reached.

Holding that the child's welfare was of paramount importance, the Court observed that rehabilitation and reformation would be better served in a family environment. "For reformatory measures and rehabilitation and to protect the best interest of the child, the best place could be the house of the child and keeping such CICL in observation home would frustrate the provision of the J.J. Act," the Court held.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the juvenile's release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. One of the bailors must be a parent, while the other must be a relative without criminal antecedents and undertake to ensure the child's proper care and upbringing.

The Court also directed the juvenile to remain present before the Juvenile Justice Board on every date fixed in the case.