ORDER

Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State through video conferencing.

2. This Criminal Revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, Siwan in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 77 of 2019 arising out of the order dated 01.10.2019 passed in Trial No. 65 of 2019 by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan in connection with G.R. Case No. 6938 of 2018 arising out of Darunda P.S. Case No. 243 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 386 of the I.P.C. By the impugned order and judgment the learned Special Judge, Siwan has refused to release the revisionist – petitioner herein on bail.

3. The allegation against the petitioner as per the First Information Report lodged by one Nuren Raja stating therein that he is presently working as Deputy Project Manager at Kamla Aditya Construction Pvt. Limited and at about 11.30 A.M. on 28.11.2018 some unknown criminals arrived on motorcycles and asked regarding the where about of the Project Manager / Site In-charge threatening the employees and labourers, upon which, the employees informed that Project Manager used to stay at Darunda Plant. It has further been alleged that at 1.00 P.M. the accused persons reached at the camp office situated at Darunda Gandak Colony and assaulted the employees on the point of gun and asked to inform the company to give Rs. 20 Lakhs as ransom and also threatened that if they want to work in this area they would have to pay Rs. 20 Lakh as rangdari ( ransom ).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared juvenile by order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was minor at the time of alleged occurrence and was aged about 17 years 09 months 27 days. Learned counsel further submits that before the Juvenile Justice Board the mother of the petitioner had appeared and gave undertaking that she would take care of the petitioner in future and would see that he does not repeat the offence, but the learned trial court i.e. Juvenile Justice Board refused to release the petitioner on bail. Learned counsel further submits that before the Juvenile Justice Board social investigation report was called for in which the investigating authority had clearly mentioned that mother has disclosed that though her son i.e. petitioner was having criminal antecedent but one chance may be given to him to reform himself. Learned counsel further submits that against the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board refusing the bail application, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 77 of 2019 before the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Siwan who by the impugned judgment and order arrived at erroneous conclusion that social investigation report prepared by the investigating authority was mechanical in manner and since the petitioner has got criminal antecedent, as such release of petitioner on bail will defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 3 (i), (iv), (v) & (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 {hereinafter referred to as “the Act”} which are quoted hereinbelow as follows:—

“(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:—All 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) Pri