The court emphasized the importance of rehabilitating juveniles over punitive actions, allowing bail based on the principles outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present application is being preferred against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Sitamarhi in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 154 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(A)(B) of the I.P.C. and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”) by which the learned Court has refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

3. The Child in conflict with law (for short ‘CICL’)/petitioner, aged about 16 years 01 month and 19 days on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 14.05.2024, is named in F.I.R. and is in observation home since 03.04.2024.

4. The allegation against the CICL/petitioner is to commit rape upon the informant while she had gone to bring wood in an orchard at some distance from her house.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CICL/petitioner submitted that petitioner/CICL was not named in the FIR, whereas on the basis of determination of age by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitamarhi the age of CICL/petitioner was found 16 years 01 month and 19 days on the date of occurrence. It is submitted that the CICL/petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case because the mother of the CICL/petitioner denied to give a piece of land to the father of the informant.

6. Learned counsel further pointed out that under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim identified the photograph of CICL/petitioner, but in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she could not say anything on this point. Similarly, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim stated that CICL/petitioner had pressed dupatta on her neck, but such dupatta was not seized by the police.

7. It is further pointed out that upon medical examination, victim’s UPT was found negative, spermatozoa was not seen in vaginal swab & bony/radiological age of victim found between 10 to 12 years and no definite opinion was given by the medical board.

8. Learned counsel also pointed out that the CICL/petitioner was not examined in terms of Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) despite of the fact that the CICL/petitioner was arrested immediately after the occurrence. While concluding argument, it is submitted that the investigation of the case has been completed and, as such, charge- sheet has been submitted, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CICL/petitioner submitted that mother of the juvenile-petitioner is ready to stand as a surety and furnish an undertaking that she will take care of the CICL/petitioner and shall ensure that he would not fall in bad company and would take all possible care to connect him with the mainstream of the society.

10. Learned APP for the State while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner/CICL as to commit rape upon the informant/victim.

11. Having regard to the submissions and materials showing that the CICL/petitioner has been adjudged juvenile aged about 16 years 01 month and 19 days on the alleged date of occurrence, and also as CICL/petitioner has remained in the Observation Home since 03.04.2024 and his mother is ready to stand as a surety and furnish an undertaking that if released on bail she will take care of the CICL/petitioner and shall ensure that he does not fall in bad company and, in case, the petitioner indulges in any