A child in conflict with law should be presumed innocent, and release on bail is prioritized for their best interest unless clear evidence suggests otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

Heard learned 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 instant criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st -cum- Special Judge (Children Court), Bhagalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court while upholding the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur in JJB 338 of 2024, arising out of Bihpur (Bhawanipur) P.S. Case No. 408 of 2023 refused to grant bail to the petitioner/child in conflict with law (In short 'CICL').

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that Bihpur (Bhawanipur) P.S. Case No. 408 of 2023 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on the written report of one Renu Devi and in her written report, the informant named the petitioner and other co- accused persons for assaulting her husband and thereafter, shooting him dead. The age of the petitioner was assessed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur to be 16 years 09 months and 17 days on the date of occurrence. Thereafter, the prayer for bail was made before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. Vide order dated 18.10.2024, the learned Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the bail petition of the CICL. Subsequently, Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2024 was filed before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Bhagalpur and vide judgment dated 03.12.2024, the learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the instant revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the CICL.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is child in conflict with law and from the FIR itself it is evident that there was no involvement of the CICL in causing death of the husband of the informant. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below have not considered the interest of the CICL and rejected the prayer for bail mainly on consideration that the parents of the petitioner have died and there is nobody to take care of the petitioner and protect the life of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the CICL is in custody since 30.10.2023 and is having antecedent of two cases. But the brother-in-law of the CICL, who is deponent in the present case, has undertaken to protect the life of the petitioner and also to take care of him so that he does not fall in bad company.

5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party no. 2 vehemently contend that the CICL does not deserve to be enlarged on bail and the orders have been rightly passed by the learned courts below. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the father of the CICL was also a notorious criminal and it has come on record that the CICL used his father's illegal firearm and habitually assaulted people on minor issues. Learned counsel further submits that after death of his parents, there is no one to take care of the petitioner and if enlarged on bail, he would continue in bad company and there is no chance of the reformation.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. 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 of