In a judgment that drew quiet murmurs inside Courtroom No. __, the Patna High Court on 18 November 2025 set aside two earlier orders that had denied bail to a 17-year-old boy accused of possessing a country-made firearm. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, after hearing both sides for nearly an hour, ruled that the Juvenile Justice Act’s “best interest of the child” principle had been overlooked by the lower courts.
Background
The case began in November 2024 when a police team from Hajipur Sadar stopped a teenage motorcycle rider who allegedly attempted a sharp U-turn on spotting them. According to the written complaint of the informant-policeman, officers recovered a loaded improvised pistol, a live cartridge, and a motorcycle without a number plate from the boy. The Juvenile Justice Board later declared him a child in conflict with law.
But the teenager’s bail plea was rejected first by the JJB in April 2025, and then by the Additional Sessions Judge in June 2025. Both authorities relied heavily on a Social Investigation Report that suggested the boy was vulnerable to “bad company,” perhaps even being used by a gang. His father, however, maintained he would personally supervise the boy and keep him away from negative influences.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Jha appeared unconvinced by the earlier findings. At one point, the judge remarked in a mild but pointed tone, “The bench observed, ‘Suspicion alone cannot become the foundation for denying a child the statutory protection that the law insists upon.’”
The Court noted that the most serious reason cited by the lower courts was the possibility of the boy returning to bad company if released. However, the judge emphasized that no concrete evidence had been placed to show he had active links with criminals. Instead, the assumption seemed to arise merely because his name appeared in multiple cases after his first arrest - a pattern the Court found questionable.
Justice Jha read aloud parts of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, explaining in simpler terms that bail is the rule for juveniles and denial is an exception. “The law says a child should be granted bail unless releasing him would expose him to danger or defeat justice,” he said while holding the section’s printed copy.
The order also highlighted foundational principles of the Act: presumption of innocence, the child’s best interest, the family’s responsibility, and the idea of a “fresh start.” The judge underlined that these are not ornamental ideas - courts must actively uphold them.
Decision
In the end, the High Court allowed the criminal revision and granted bail to the boy on a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his father. The Court also directed that he must appear before the Juvenile Justice Board on every date of hearing. With that, Justice Jha set aside both earlier orders and closed the matter.
Case Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj @ Hunter Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 820 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal Revision (Bail matter concerning a Juvenile in Conflict with Law)
Decision Date: 18 November 2025
