The welfare and best interests of a juvenile in conflict with law take precedence over the gravity of alleged offenses in bail considerations.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/child in conflict with law and learned counsel for the State.

02. The petitioner is a juvenile in conflict with law and the instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Judgment/Order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge (Juvenile Court) Araria, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2024 arising out J.J.B. No. 102 of 2024 in connection with Araria R.S. P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024 for the offences under Section 126(2), 115(2), 65(1), 351 (2) & (3), 352, 3/5 of the B.N.S. and Section 06 of the POCSO Act whereby and whereunder the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge (Juvenile Court) Araria rejected the appeal of the petitioner for grant of bail and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Araria was upheld.

The present revision is also preferred against order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Araria in Araria R.S. P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024 wherein the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the informant gave a written report stating that the petitioner who is a child in conflict with law (In short ‘CICL’) committed sexual assault upon her minor daughter and raped her. When the informant reached the spot, the petitioner fled away.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner/CICL submits that the orders of the learned courts below are against the law as well as the facts existing on record. The age of the petitioner was assessed to be 14 years, 6 month and 13 days vide order dated 12.09.2024 whereas the daughter of the informant was aged 15 years as per the version of the informant. No material was found to show that CICL committed sexual assault over the daughter of the informant. The FIR has been lodged after much delay as occurrence is stated to have taken place on 08.08.2024 whereas the FIR was lodged on 24.08.2024 without any explanation. This shows the falsity of allegation. On medical examination of the victim, her age was assessed to be 14-16 years and no sign of recent sexual assault was found and hymen was found intact. While rejecting the prayer for bail of the CICL the learned appellate court as well as the learned Juvenile Justice Board did not consider the best interest of the child. There is no material on record to show that granting bail to the CICL would bring him into association with the criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. The CICL is having no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 29.08.2024. Learned counsel for the CICL also submits that the mother of the CICL has given an undertaking that she will take care of her son and will protect her son from anti-social elements and anti- social activities. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are bad and the same needs to be set aside and the CICL may be enlarged on bail.

05. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/the informant.

06. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the parties and the matter at hand.

07. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:-

“Section 12 Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released