Patna High Court – Orders
Mahi Singh @ Yuwaraj Ranjan vs The State Of Bihar on 20 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.219 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2024 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran
======================================================
Mahi Singh @ Yuwaraj Ranjan Son of Shashi Singh @ Rajeev Pratap Singh
Resident of village- Amnour, P.S.- Amnour, Distt.- Saran (Under the
Guardianship of father of petitioner) namely Rajeev Pratap Singh,(45 years),
S/O Bhola Singh. Resident of village- Amnour, P.S.- Amnour, Distt.- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Madhusudan Singh Resident of Village-
Parshurampur, P.s.- Amnour, Distt.- Saran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mili Kumari
For the State : Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma
For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Suman Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-06-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel for the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This revision application has been filed against the
judgment and order, dated 20.01.2025, passed by learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Children Court, Saran, at
Chapra, in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 14 of 2024, by which
the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. By
impugned order, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum-
Children Court, Saran, has affirmed the order, dated 24.10.2024,
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, at Chapra, in
Juvenile Enquiry No. 883 of 2024, arising out of Amnour
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.219 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025
2/7
Police Station Case No. 150 of 2024, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 363/365/302/201/120-B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report, is that on 16.05.2024, in the night, at about 9:30 pm,
informant’s son, Alok Kumar, and his friend Rishav Kapoor,
came at the shop of the informant, took a bottle of cold drink,
and went on a motorcycle, but till late night, the informant’s son
did not return. During search, the informant went to the house of
the co-accused Rishav Kapoor and asked about his son’s
whereabouts, upon which he told that he had dropped the
deceased on way and he does not know anything about his
whereabouts. During investigation, the dead body of informant’s
son was found buried in an orchard.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation in
the confessional statement of co-accused Rishav Kapoor that the
petitioner along with co-accused Abhay Tiwari strangulated the
informant’s son (deceased) with the help of towel, due to which
he died. He further submits that the petitioner was declared
juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, at Chapra,
after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was minor at
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.219 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025
3/7
the time of alleged occurrence. He next submits that by the
impugned order, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum-
Children Court, Saran, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner
for bail on erroneous conclusion that there is a possibility that
the petitioner will again come in contact with the same friends
circle, if released on bail and grant of bail to the petitioner may
cause moral, physical and psychological danger to him. He next
submits that learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum-
Children Court, Saran, did not consider the social investigation
report in correct legal perspective. He further submits that the
petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and his
name has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused person and the petitioner is in remand
home since 02.09.2024.
5. Learned Counsel relies upon Section 3 (i), (iv), (v)
and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),
which are quoted herein below:-
“(i) Principle of presumption
of innocence:- Any child shall be
presumed to be an innocent of any mala
fide or criminal intent up to the age of
eighteen years.
(iv) Principle of best interest:-
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.219 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025
4/7All decisions regarding the child shall be
based on the primary consideration that
they are in the best interest of the child
and to help the child to develop full
potential.
(v) Principle of family
responsibility:- The primary
responsibility of care, nurture and
protection of the child shall be that of the
biological family or adoptive or foster
parents, as the case may be.
(xiv) Principle of fresh start:-
All past records of any child under the
Juvenile Justice system should be erased
except in special circumstances”
6. Learned Counsel, referring to above mentioned
provisions of law, submits that as per the scheme of the Act
there is presumption of innocence of a child in conflict with law
and all decisions regarding the child shall be taken in
consonance with the principle of the best interest of the child.
He further submits that the principle of family responsibility and
principle of fresh start have also been recognized under the Act.
7. In reference to Section 12 of the Act, learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that bail to a child in conflict
with law is a rule and denial is exception.
8. Learned Counsel, in the aforesaid background,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.219 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025
5/7
submits that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum-
Children Court, Saran, has failed to consider the scheme of the
Act and has committed irregularity in arriving at the conclusion
that the petitioner will again come in contact with the same
criminal circle, if released on bail.
9. Learned Counsel further submits that the father of
the petitioner is ready to take proper care of the petitioner after
release on bail and shall not allow him to fall into bad company
and would try to bring change in his behaviour, if required.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that from perusal of Section 12 of the Act, it
appears that bail is a matter of right to a child in conflict with
law and denial is exception and in view of the fact that father
has given an undertaking to reform her child, i.e. the petitioner,
this Court may consider to pass appropriate order in the best
interest of the child in conflict with law.
11. A Bench of this Court, in Lalu Kumar @
Lalbabu @ Lallu v State of Bihar, reported in 2019 (4) PLJR
833, while interpreting Section 12 of the Act, has laid down the
principle that the Board while considering bail of a Juvenile is
duty bound to follow the principle of ‘best interest’,
‘repatriation’ and ‘restoration’ of child. The gravity and nature
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.219 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025
6/7
of offence are immaterial for consideration of bail of a juvenile.
As per Section 12 of the Act of 2015, an application for bail is
not decided by reference to classification of offences as bailable
or non-bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
12. Having regard to the submissions made by the
parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the
considered opinion that there is possibility of reform in the
petitioner inasmuch and the father of the petitioner is ready to
take proper care of the petitioner after his release on bail, as
such there is no likelihood that the petitioner will fall into
association with any known criminal(s). Accordingly, the
conclusion arrived at by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge
-cum- Children Court, Saran, is not sustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
13. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed
and the order, dated 20.01.2025, passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge -cum- Children Court, Saran, in Criminal
(Juvenile) Appeal No. 14 of 2024, as well as order, dated
24.10.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, at
Chapra, in Juvenile Enquiry No. 883 of 2024, arising out of
Amnour Police Station Case No. 150 of 2024, are hereby set
aside.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.219 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025
7/7
14. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, at Chapra, in Juvenile
Enquiry No. 883 of 2024, arising out of Amnour Police Station
Case No. 150 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) that one of the bailors shall be the father of the
petitioner;
(ii) that the father of the petitioner shall file an
affidavit before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran, at
Chapra, giving specific undertaking that after release of the
petitioner on bail, he will take proper care of the petitioner and
will not allow him to fall into bad company.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √