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

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Children Case No. 01 of 2025, arising out of Harnaut P.S. Case No. 139 of 2024 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that brother of the informant was shot dead by some unknown miscreants.

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. It is submitted that the appellant is a juvenile and his case has been transferred from the J.J. Board to the Court of Children Act vide order dated 10.02.2025 passed in J.J. Board Case No. 365 of 2024. The appellant is not named in the FIR. Name of the appellant has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused, namely, Sujeet Kumar and Sonu Kumar and the same has got no evidentiary value. No specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant rather the same is general and omnibus in nature.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused person has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 72181 of 2024 and has also submitted that the appellant has got four criminal antecedent in which he is on bail and is languishing in jail custody since 05.06.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that father of the appellant, who is the guardian of the appellant, undertakes that he 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. He thus submits that the appellant may be released on bail. He 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, nothing adverse has been reported against the present appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that father of the appellant is ready to keep the appellant in a social conducive atmosphere and will not allow his son to be in company of unlawful element of the society. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the father 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 father 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, without considering the general principles laid down under Section 3 as well as the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the J.J.Act, rejected the bail of the appellant who is child in conflict with law.

8. Learned Special P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.

9. Section 3 of the J.J. Act of 2015 enumerates the general principles to be followed in administration of the Act. It regulates the conduct and behaviour of all persons functioning under the Act. It states that the Central Government, the State Governments, the Board and other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of the Act shall be guided by the fundamental principles enumerated in clauses (i) to (xvi). Section 3 reads as follows: –

“3. General principles to be followed in administration of Act. The Central Government, the State Governments, the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be, while implement