Jitendra Kumar, J. –

Introduction

The present appeal has been preferred by the juvenile-appellant against the impugned order dated 02.01.2026, passed by learned Children Court in J.E. Trial No. 18 of 2025, arising out of Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 539 of 2025, whereby learned Children Court has rejected the regular bail application of the appellant under Section 12 of the J.J. Act.

Prosecution Case

2. As per the prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, lodged by the father of the deceased is that his victim-son had gone to market with some friends at 01:30 PM. But after some time, at 02:40 PM, he got information from the friends of his son that the appellant and other co-accused persons have committed murder of his son outside the V2 mall. As per further allegation, co-accused persons, Akash Kumar, Abhishek Kumar, Himanshu Yadav and Samir Ansari along with four unknown persons had caught hold of his son and Vikas Kumar had stabbed his son by knife resulting into the death of his son.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the informant is not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence and the whole written report is based only on hearsay from the friends of the deceased.

5. He further submits that as per the postmortem report, there is only one incised wound found on the body of the deceased as ante-mortem injury and the death has been found to be caused by haemorrhage shock due to ante-mortem injury caused by sharp edged weapons.

6. He further submits that as per the FIR, about nine persons are involved in the commission of the alleged offence and only one incised wound has been found on the body of the deceased and for want of any direct witness or any other cogent evidence, it is not possible to attribute the stab injury to the present appellant. There is no cogent evidence to show that it is the appellant who has committed the fatal injury on the person of the deceased.

7. He further submits that except the present appellant, all other co-accused persons are already enlarged on bail.

8. He further submits that under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, grant of bail to a juvenile is a rule and denial of the same is an exception and bail to a juvenile can be denied only on the limited grounds as provided in proviso to Section 12 of the J.J. Act and none of the grounds as provided in Section 12 is made out to deny the bail to the juvenile-appellant.

9. He further submits that institutionalization of reformatory and developmental process of a juvenile in conflict with law is the last resort and the family of the juvenile is the first and foremost institution for reformation and development of the juvenile in conflict with law.

10. He further submits that as per the Social Investigation Report, there is no criminal antecedent, either of the appellant or his family members including his father mother and siblings. There is no negative environment at his home.

11. He also submits that the father of the appellant is ready to give any undertaking to ensure that the appellant will not get involved in any criminal activities and he will pursue vocational training for his livelihood so that he can rehabilitate.

Submission on behalf of the State

12. However, learned counsel for the State defends the impugned order whereby learned Children Court has rejected the regular bail application of the appellant under Section 12 of the J.J. Act submitting that the alleged offence is serious in nature and he is the main co-accused in the commission of the alleged offence.

Legal Provisions regarding Bail to Juveniles under the J.J. Act, 2015.

13. Before I consider the rival submission of the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which deals with bail to the Juvenile. Se