JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

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

02. The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment/Order dated 04.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2024 by the learned Additional District and 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 30.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Araria rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 55 of 2024 arising out of Araria Mahila PS Case No. 13 of 2024 for the offences under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

03. 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. 13 of 2024 under Section 376(AB) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act with allegation that the petitioner committed rape with her 5½ year old daughter. The petitioner/child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’) was taken in custody on 08.03.2024. 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 30.07.2024. The CICL preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (Children’s Court) Araria. The CICL approached this Court impugning the aforesaid two orders.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute between the father-in-law of the informant and grandfather of the petitioner who are brothers. The petitioner is a 15 year old student and has got no criminal antecedent. 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 who is a student and 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 stays outside for most of the time as he earns his livelihood in Delhi/Punjab. It has also been mentioned that the CICL has been staying with his maternal grandparents and his mother remained busy with the work of her shop. 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 the friendly nature of the CICL and also 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.

05. 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 5½ year old girl. His offences comes under the aggravated sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act carrying punishment of 20 years. Learned counsel further submits that in the social investigation report and social background report, it has also come that there was general lack of discipline in