Bail should generally be granted to juveniles, with serious offenses not excluding this unless specific safety or justice concerns arise. Emphasis on rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system is critical.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I^st.-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Madhubani, in E. N. No. 1470 of 2023, arising out of Madhepur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2023, whereby learned Children Court has rejected the application of the appellant for releasing him on bail.

2. The appellant has been lodged in Observation Home for about one year and seven months since 05.10.2023.

3. Madhepura P.S. Case No. 242 of 2023 has been registered against unknown 4-5 persons for offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 302, 363, 364, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on written report of one Runa Devi regarding death of her husband, Guddu Jha.

4. As per the written report dated 29.09.2023, Guddu Jha was missing since morning and despite search, the informant could not get any clue about his whereabout. But she came to know as per hearsay that he was beaten by 4-5 persons in Pasikhana (place of taking tari, a type of intoxicant made of palm juice) at about 8-10 am.

5. Subsequent to the lodging of the F.I.R., the dead body of Guddu Jha was found in Sanath Jha’s pond. The pond was filled up with water. As per the post-mortem report, death of Guddu Jha was caused by drowning.

6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against four persons including the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 364 , 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.12.2023, the appellant was found to be 17 years, 5 months and 24 days old and was declared juvenile. As per preliminary assessment vide order dated 03.04.2024, he was found to be adult and his case was transferred from Juvenile Justice Board to Children Court, where the appellant filed bail petition, but the same was rejected by the impugned order.

8. I heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. There is no material at all to show any complicity of the appellant in the alleged offence. The whole case, as per the police report, against the appellant is based on suspicion and hearsay. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. The appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and no evidence worth the name has been collected by the police during investigation showing his complicity in the alleged offence.

10. He further submits that learned Children Court has rejected the bail application of the Appellant not only on irrelevant consideration but even on a wrong fact. As per the impugned order, the Appellant, as per Social Investigation Report, has a habit of intoxication, whereas there is no such reference in the Social Investigation Report. Moreover, heinous nature of the alleged offence is no ground for rejecting the bail application of a juvenile, irrespective of his age but one of the grounds given by learned Children Court to reject the bail of the Appellant is serious nature of the alleged offence.

11. He further submits that the impugned order is not in consonance with the object of the Juvenile Justice Act, which intends not to punish the child in conflict with law but to reform and rehabilitate him so that the child could be reintegrated with the society and he could become its productive member.

12. He also submits that family of the child inflict with law has been contemplated as the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the Act and institutionalization of a juvenile in conf