Introduction

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43991 of 2024, Judgment dated 12-09-2025.

The case arose from an anticipatory bail application filed by Rohit Kumar Yadav, a child in conflict with law (CICL) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner sought protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which allows anticipatory bail. The central issue before the Patna High Court was whether a juvenile can legally invoke anticipatory bail, since the Juvenile Justice Act does not expressly mention such a provision. The petitioner’s counsel argued that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution applies equally to juveniles, and thus they should not be denied the safeguard of pre-arrest bail.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation meant to protect children’s rights and must be interpreted in the “best interest of the child.” The counsel emphasized that terms like “apprehension” under the Act are akin to “arrest,” and without anticipatory bail, juveniles could face undue harassment and detention in observation homes. Reliance was placed on judgments from various High Courts including Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh, which recognized that anticipatory bail can be extended to juveniles.

In contrast, the State of Bihar opposed the plea, arguing that the Juvenile Justice Act is a self-contained code. It provides its own bail mechanism under Section 12, which applies only after apprehension, thereby making anticipatory bail redundant. The State relied on decisions from the Madras, Punjab & Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable for juveniles since the Act prohibits their arrest in the first place. According to the State, extending anticipatory bail to CICLs would bypass the child-friendly safeguards created by the Act.

After examining conflicting judicial opinions across the country, the Patna High Court concluded that a CICL is indeed entitled to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court stressed that the Constitution recognizes juveniles as “persons,” and denial of anticipatory bail would violate their fundamental right to personal liberty. It further held that the Juvenile Justice Act does not expressly bar anticipatory bail at the pre-apprehension stage, and hence, a harmonious interpretation requires extending this remedy to juveniles. Thus, the Court upheld the maintainability of anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of children in conflict with law.

Case Title: Rohit Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar