Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned District and Additional Session Judge First-cum-Child Court, Madhubani whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Juvenile Appeal No. 26 of 2024, arising out of Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354(B), 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, all the accused persons including the appellant came at the gate of the informant and started abusing her. On protest, co-accused Arvind Yadav opened fire on the leg of informant’s father-in-law and other accused persons assaulted other family members of the informant. It is alleged against the appellant that he along with others outraged modesty of the informant and also committed attempt to rape upon her.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is juvenile and innocent and has committed no any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. The appellant has been declared juvenile on 06.09.2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Madhubani and his age was evaluated as 15 years, 11 months and 27 days which is apparent from the impugned order itself. The allegation levelled against the appellant is general and omnibus in nature. The informant has alleged that the appellant and co-accused Krishnadeo Yadav has tried to commit rape with her and the allegation is ornamental in nature. There is no direct or specific evidence against the appellant and only on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that specific allegation of firing is against co-accused, namely, Arvind Yadav.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused person has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25477 of 2024 and has also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail custody since 24.07.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that mother of the appellant, who is the guardian of the appellant, undertakes that she will take care of the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and further added that the appellant will bear good conduct and behaviour in future. She thus submits that the appellant may be released on bail. She further submits that the present case does not come under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J.Act and in so far as Social Investigation Report (S.I.R.) is concerned, it is reported that the classmates of the juvenile informed that he did not have involvement in any criminal activities and the local teachers have also reported that he was a disciplined boy as also they have not seen him getting involved in any kind of negative activities in the educational institution in the past.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that mother of the appellant is ready to keep the appellant in a social conducive atmosphere and will not allow her son to be in company of unlawful element of the society. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the mother of the appellant has given an undertaking that upon release on bail, juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the mother of the appellant will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. Learned counsel for the appellant further points out that the learned court below,