JUDGMENT :

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 21.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No. 575 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2) of the SC/ST Act by which the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant was rejected.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that, the informant alleges that on 12.09.2024 at about 3 PM, his son Bipin Kumar, while going to deliver money, was shot dead by unknown miscreants near a field and died of a firearm injury to the chest; he was declared dead at hospital.

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 01.02.2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board. The allegation levelled against the appellant is general and omnibus 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. He further contends that the specific allegation of firing is against co-accused Pawan Kumar.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused person has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 587 of 2025 and has also submitted that the appellant has four criminal antecedents and he has been remanded in this case on 23.10.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Probation Officer in his Report (SIR) has stated that the appellant was involved in the crime due to his bad companion. He further reported that appellant had friendship with criminals and the parents had no control over the appellant. Learned counsel further contends that the 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 prays that the appellant may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the present case does not come under the proviso of Section 12 of the J.J.Act.

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, 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 petitioner 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