JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment/Order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court) Araria whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge (Children Court) Araria dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and also to set aside the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with J.J.B. Case No.117 of 2024 arising out of Araria Mahila PS Case No. 44 of 2024 for the offences under Section 341, 376, 313, 417/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the institution of the present petition is that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a case vide Araria Mahila P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024 under Section 341, 376, 313, 417/34 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act with allegation that the while she was alone in her house, this petitioner forced upon her by gagging her mouth and later on gave her allurement of marriage. By giving this inducement of marriage, he kept on committing rape with her. When she became pregnant, the petitioner gave her some medication and her pregnancy was aborted by taking her to a doctor. The petitioner refused to marry the opposite party no. 2 and in panchayati the petitioner and his family members refused to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner/child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’) was taken in custody on 17.10.2024. The CICL moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Araria for grant of bail but his prayer was rejected and his petition for bail was dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2025. The CICL preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (Children’s Court) Araria. The CICL approached this Court impugning the aforesaid two orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case due to ill motive of the victim. The petitioner was declared juvenile vide order dated 30.10.2024 by the JJB Araria and the age of the petitioner was 12 years 06 months and 21 days on the date of occurrence and has got no criminal antecedent. The age of the victim is about 18 years. Learned counsel further submits that the orders of the learned Courts below are bad in the eye of law as well as on facts. The Courts have not considered about false implication of the CICL and the fact that he has been deprived of care and protection of his family by placing him in custody. There is no possibility of petitioner doing any harm to the victim or any of the witnesses. The social investigation report and social background report do not make out any case to keep the CICL in custody. It has only been mentioned that there was lack of discipline in the house and father of the CICL is a labourer. It has also been mentioned that the CICL has studied up to Class V only. His friends are also not literate. However the same report also mentions about his clean antecedent and normal mental condition. Further the parents of the CICL are ready to take care of him and for his proper physical and mental development, he needs to be enlarged on bail as his continuous custody would be detrimental to his mental and physical well being. There is no chance of CICL falling in bad company and his family members are also not having any criminal antecedent. Therefore the petitioner ought to have been released on bail after setting aside the impugned orders as both the Courts below passed erroneous orders.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 vehemently contends that the offence of the CICL is very serious. He committed rape with a girl an