The best interest of the child is paramount in juvenile bail decisions, requiring substantial justification for denial, irrespective of the offense's gravity.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is a juvenile in conflict with law and the instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Juvenile Appeal No. 07 of 2025 arising out of Khutauna P.S. Case No. 19 of 2024 registered under Section 399 , 402, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Madhubani whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court rejected the appeal of the petitioner and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail.

3. As per prosecution case, police apprehended the petitioner and three other co-accused persons while they assembled for making preparation to commit crime and 2-3 persons managed to escape from the spot taking advantage of darkness. Recovery of arms, ammunition and mobile phones were made from other co-accused persons. From the possession of the petitioner a mobile phone was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the learned Appellate Court has passed the order without considering the facts and law. The learned Appellate Court rejected the prayer for bail on the ground of the Social Investigation Report of the petitioner but the said report has been prepared with false averments by submitting that petitioner was not in control of his mother and there was absence of moral and ethical values in the house and for this reason, there was possibility of involvement of the petitioner in anti-social activities after his release. But the petitioner never indulged in any illegal activities and his mother undertakes to take control of her son in future and not to allow him to indulge in any criminal activities. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is a minor and seriousness and gravity of offence could not be considered while granting bail to the petitioner who is a child in conflict with law. The Social Background Report and the Social Investigation Report have been prepared on the basis of wrong facts. It is the requirement of law that unless reasonable grounds are available to believe that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner would go into association of any known criminals and he would be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger or that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice, the prayer for bail ought not to be rejected. But the learned Appellate Court in general and vague terms and without considering the express provisions of law went on to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner and at the same time also mentioned that the allegation against the petitioner was serious in nature. The same could not be a consideration for rejection of bail of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and other co-accused persons were apprehended by the police party with allegation that they had been making plan for committing dacoity and some of the co- accused persons were apprehended with firearms and ammunition but from the possession of the petitioner recovery of only a mobile phone was made and no firearm or ammunition were recovered from his possession. The petitioner had been made accused in two more cases on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Pankaj Kumar and prior to that there was no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. Both the cases were lodged on 19.01.2024 and subsequently the petitioner was apprehended in this case on 23.01.2024 showing as one of the accused pe