JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter 'J.J. Act'), against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by learned Children Court -cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2024, which has affirmed the order of the learned Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner dated 10.09.2024 passed in G.R. No. 3600 of 2024, J.E. No. 402 of 2024, arising out of Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 is the informant of Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner, a child in conflict with law ('CICL'), and others for the murder of his son. The informant/opposite party no. 2 alleged that the co-accused persons shot at his son, who subsequently died while being taken to hospital. The CICL moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board seeking bail and his prayer for bail was rejected vide order dated 10.09.2024 by learned Juvenile Justice Board. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the CICL also came to be dismissed by learned Children Court -cum- Additional Sessions Judge-I, Siwan vide order dated 13.01.2025. Against these orders, the CICL has approached this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/CICL submits that both the courts below did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and did not take into consideration the Social Investigation Report/Social Background Report of the child in conflict with law. On merits, there is no allegation against the petitioner for opening fire for killing the son of the informant. This fact has came during investigation only due to presence of this petitioner at a tea stall where the occurrence took place. This fact has also been taken note of by the Probation Officer, who has reported about the presence of the petitioner at the tea shop along with his friend under column 6 of the report, wherein it has been mentioned that co-accused was having some dispute with the deceased and who opened fire. The CICL has not idea that such happening would take place. Though in Social Investigation Report/Social Background Report it has been mentioned that the economic condition of the family of the CICL is good and the CICL is having no criminal antecedent and he is studying in Classs X and there has been no other circumstance which might show the CICL was in danger of falling in bad company or coming to harm the physical or psychological, still the Probation Officer mentioned that CICL should be kept in supervision of Probation Officer or fit person as the court thinks fit to protect the best interest of child. Learned senior counsel further submits that the parents of the child are the best person to protect the interest of the child and reformation and rehabilitation of the CICL is of paramount importance and in this case, there is no material to suggest that the release of CICL would be detrimental of his well-being or society at large. The CICL is in custody since 17.06.2024 which has been causing serious psychological and mental distress to CICL and is affecting his right of education and normal development. Learned senior counsel further submits that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the juvenile should not be detained in custody unless there are compelling circumstances to deny the bail. There is no material to substantiate the reasoning of the learned courts below for denial of the bail to CICL. Considering the af