Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in a judgment delivered on 22 March 2021, granted bail to a juvenile accused who had been detained for over four years in connection with a case involving allegations of rape and murder of a minor girl. The Court held that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, bail is the rule and its denial is an exception. Since there was no evidence to suggest that releasing the boy would expose him to criminal influence or endanger society, and given the excessive delay in trial, his continued detention was unjustified.
The petitioner, a boy named in Bhagwanpur Police Station Case No. 130 of 2016, was accused along with another individual of kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering a four-year-old girl. The case was initially registered against unknown persons under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping. Later, after the victim’s body was recovered from behind the cattle shed (Bathan) of the petitioner’s house, more serious charges were added — Sections 302 (murder), 376D (gang rape), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and relevant sections of the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences).
During the investigation, both the petitioner and a co-accused named Kundan Kumar were arrested. Police claimed that both had confessed to committing the crime. However, the petitioner was a minor, and upon medical examination, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) declared him below 18 years of age. Despite this, given the severity of the allegations, the JJB refused bail on 4 September 2017 and referred the case to the Children’s Court for trial. The order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hajipur, on 6 December 2017.
The petitioner then filed this revision before the Patna High Court, arguing that he had been falsely implicated due to village politics and a land dispute. His counsel submitted that there was no direct or credible evidence against him except a so-called confession before the police, which is not admissible in law. He had no criminal history and had already spent more than four years and seven months in custody, with little progress in the trial.
The State opposed the plea, emphasizing that the body was found behind the petitioner’s premises and that a sniffer dog led investigators to his house. The prosecution also pointed out that both accused had confessed their involvement in the offence.
Justice Madhuresh Prasad, after reviewing the case diary and hearing both sides, noted several key observations:
- No direct evidence connected the petitioner to the crime. None of the witnesses claimed to have seen him with the victim.
- The so-called confession made before police has no legal evidentiary value.
- The petitioner had been in custody for an unreasonably long period — over four years and seven months — without the trial making significant progress.
- The co-accused Kundan Kumar had already been granted bail by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1204 of 2018 on 22 May 2020 under similar circumstances.
The Court referred to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides that a “child in conflict with law” shall be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that doing so would bring the child into contact with known criminals, expose them to moral or physical danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
The judge emphasized that bail, not jail, is the guiding principle for juveniles, even in serious offences. Since there was no evidence that the petitioner’s release would lead him into bad company or endanger public safety, and considering the long delay and his clean record, the Court found no reason to keep him detained further.
The Court also noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, trials across the State had slowed significantly, and only a few witnesses had been examined so far (five out of sixteen).
The Court therefore set aside both the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board (dated 04.09.2017) and the Appellate Court (dated 06.12.2017), directing that the juvenile be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his mother. The mother was required to give an undertaking that she would monitor her son’s behavior and ensure his presence during trial proceedings.
In conclusion, the High Court reiterated that even though the allegations were grave, continued detention of a juvenile without progress in trial and without credible evidence defeats the reformative purpose of the juvenile justice system.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
- This judgment reinforces the reformative spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
- It reminds law enforcement and courts that bail for juveniles is the rule — denial must be based on specific and recorded reasons.
- The Court recognized that prolonged detention of a minor without trial violates their right to liberty and fair procedure.
- It also highlighted that confessions before police carry no evidentiary value unless recorded before a magistrate.
- For the State and judiciary, the ruling underscores the need to expedite juvenile trials, especially during periods of systemic delays like the pandemic.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether a juvenile accused in a serious crime (murder and rape) can be granted bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act?
— Yes. Bail is the rule; refusal is the exception. The Act requires specific reasons to deny bail, none of which existed here. - Whether long pre-trial detention of a juvenile violates the objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act?
— Yes. Keeping a minor in custody for years without progress in trial defeats the purpose of rehabilitation and violates due process. - Whether confession before police can justify detention?
— No. Such confessions are inadmissible in evidence. - Whether co-accused already being on bail strengthens the petitioner’s case?
— Yes. On parity and fairness grounds, similar relief should follow.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Co-Accused Kundan Kumar’s Bail Order, Cr. Revision No. 1204 of 2018, Patna High Court, Order dated 22.05.2020
Case Title
Bishnu Kumar @ Bishnu Paswan v. The State of Bihar
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2021
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 394
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the State: Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
Link to Judgment
NyMxODAjMjAyMSMxI04=-VutQKIEdySg=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
