‘Surprising’: Patna HC Grants Bail To Juveniles In 65-Kg Ganja Case, Orders Security Probe [Read Judgment]

Patna: The High Court of Patna has granted bail to two children in conflict with law (CICL) apprehended with a commercial quantity of ganja under the NDPS Act, holding that the lower courts had denied bail without any material to support their conclusion that the juveniles would fall into bad company or face moral, physical or psychological danger if released, while separately directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to inquire into the circumstances of their claimed age and juvenility and into lapses in security along the route they had travelled.

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing Criminal Revision, against the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Patna, and the State of Bihar, both petitions arising from the same DRI Patna Unit Case No. 01 of 2024-25 and disposed of by a common judgment.

The case arose from the interception of a Mahindra TUV vehicle by DRI officers acting on secret information about ganja being transported from Guwahati, Assam, to Didarganj, Bihar; a search revealed 65.940 kg (gross weight) of ganja concealed in 109 packets in a secret cavity in the vehicle's chassis. The petitioners, occupants of the vehicle, were taken into custody on 08.04.2024 and a case was registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Patna, petitioner XX's age was assessed at 15 years 9 months and petitioner X1's age at 16 years on the date of occurrence, and both were declared CICL. The JJB rejected their respective bail applications by orders dated 19.08.2025 and 19.06.2025, and these orders were upheld by the appellate court, the District & Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Patna, by orders dated 17.02.2026 and 17.09.2025, prompting the present revision petitions.

Senior counsel for petitioner XX submitted that the impugned orders were bad in law and on facts, passed without considering the merits, and that the petitioner had been falsely implicated due to local politics, since nothing incriminating was recovered from his conscious possession, the contraband having been found in the vehicle of which he was not the owner. It was submitted that both subordinate courts had overlooked Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, under which bail is a matter of right for a CICL barring specified exceptions, and had instead denied bail on unsupported conjecture, holding without material that release would expose the petitioner to bad company or moral, physical or psychological danger and defeat the ends of justice. It was emphasised that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and had already been in custody since 08.04.2024. Counsel for petitioner X1 adopted these submissions in full.

Counsel for the DRI and the Special Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the petitions, submitting that there was no infirmity in the orders of the appellate court or the JJB, that the petitioners had been apprehended with a commercial quantity of ganja in the presence of two independent witnesses, and that if released on bail, there was a real possibility that the petitioners would again fall into bad company, exposing them to moral, physical or psychological danger and frustrating the ends of justice.

The Court held that under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, bail can be denied to a CICL only where there is material to show that release would bring the child into contact with criminal elements, endanger the child's moral, physical or psychological well-being, or defeat the ends of justice, and that absent such grounds, bail could not be refused. Referring to the child-centric objects of the Act under Section 3, including the principles of best interest, institutionalisation as a measure of last resort, and repatriation and restoration of the child to family and community, the Court held that a CICL is ordinarily entitled to be released on bail unless the record supports one of the statutory grounds for refusal.

Applying this standard, the Court held that while the petitioners had been apprehended with a commercial quantity of ganja, the seriousness of the allegation could not by itself justify refusal of bail once they had been declared juveniles, and that there was no cogent material on record to support the lower courts' findings that the petitioners would fall into bad company or face danger if released. It held that institutionalisation of a CICL is a matter of last resort and rarely in the child's best interest, and that the subordinate courts had erred in denying bail.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the appellate orders dated 17.02.2026 and 17.09.2025 as well as the underlying JJB orders dated 19.08.2025 and 19.06.2025, and directed that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions that one surety be a parent and the other a relative with no criminal antecedents undertaking proper care of the petitioner, and that the petitioners remain present before the Board on every date of trial. Both revision petitions were allowed.

Before parting with the matter, the Court flagged certain disturbing facts for further inquiry: at the time of apprehension, DRI had recorded the petitioners' ages as 25 and 21 years, though they were subsequently found to be juveniles; the petitioners, both minors, had driven unaccompanied from Guwahati to Patna without any identification, registration certificate or driving licence; and their claim of never having attended school appeared difficult to credit. The Court observed that the State's claim of foolproof security arrangements appeared hollow if the petitioners could travel uninterrupted across states carrying a commercial quantity of ganja, and that they could equally have carried explosives endangering the public. 

It accordingly directed the SSP, Patna, to conduct a proper inquiry within three months into whether the petitioners were in fact juveniles as claimed, whether they had genuinely received no schooling or government benefits requiring proof of age, and into the security lapses along the route, with a report to be placed before the Court. It was clarified that if the inquiry revealed concealment of material facts regarding age or any fraudulent practice, the State and DRI would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail bonds and review of the orders declaring the petitioners CICL.

Appearances:

For Petitioner XX (Cr. Rev. No. 251 of 2026): Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate.

For Petitioner X1 (Cr. Rev. No. 1211 of 2025): Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.

For the State: AC to ASG (in Cr. Rev. No. 251 of 2026); Mr. Lalan Kumar, Special PP (in Cr. Rev. No. 1211 of 2025).

For the UOI/DRI: Mr. Amit Pandey, Senior SC, DRI (in Cr. Rev. No. 251 of 2026); Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate (in Cr. Rev. No. 1211 of 2025).

Case Title: XX vs. D.R.I. Patna & Anr., Criminal Revision No. 251 of 2026, with X1 vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2025

[Read Judgment]