JUDGMENT :

RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, West Champaran at Bettiah whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Bagaha Nadi P.S. Case No. 39 of 2023 under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act by which the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail was rejected.

3. Accusation against the appellant is of commission of rape upon the informant’s minor daughter.

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 and his age was assessed as 16 years, 4 months and 20 days by the Juvenile Justice Board. The allegation levelled against the appellant is false and concocted. 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.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and he has been in observation home since 26.11.2023.

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 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 father 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 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 submits that the Social Investigation Report (for brevity, ‘S.I.R.’) clearly reflects that the appellant belongs to a poor family background and, due to financial hardship, has been earning wages from a very young age to support his family. It is further submitted that upon local enquiry, the villagers have categorically stated that the appellant is innocent and has been maintaining good moral conduct and character in society. The S.I.R. also brings on record that even about 2–2½ years prior to the alleged occurrence, the prosecution side had attempted to falsely link the appellant’s name with the elder sister of the victim, indicating a pre-existing animosity and false implication. 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 and learned counsel for the informant have 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 Cent