The presumption of innocence applies to juveniles in bail considerations, requiring substantial evidence for denial of bail.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/child in conflict with law, learned APP for the State.

02. The petitioner is a juvenile and the instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Judgment/Order dated 29.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge Children Court-cum-1st-District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in J.J.B. No. 549 of 2024 arising out of Sasaram(T) Model P.S. Case No. 898 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 21 , 23, 25, 25A, 27(a), 29, 30, 32 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 and Section 25 (1-B)(a),35,36 of the Arms Act whereby and whereunder the learned J.J.Board, Rohtas at Sasaram rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

03. Briefly stated facts of the case is that that police received secret information about co-accused persons indulging in the trade of heroin and other psychotropic substances. A raid was conducted at the houses of the co-accused persons and this petitioner along with other co-accused persons was apprehended and recovery of 930 grams, 722 grams and 233 grams of heroin along with live cartridges, firearms, laptops, mobile phones and other articles were made from various places at the instance of the accused persons. Hence, the FIR vide Sasaram(T) Model P.S. Case No. 898 of 2024 was instituted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The petitioner filed a petition for bail before the J.J.Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in JJB Case No. 549/2024 which was rejected and thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal against the rejection order which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2025. Aggrieved by these two orders the petitioner has come before this Court in the instant revision petition.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the FIR it is apparent that no recovery has been made from the conscious possession of this petitioner and similarly placed co-accused persons namely Anurag Raj, Altumas @ Jaid Ali and Bikash Kumar have been granted bail vide orders dated 29.08.2025, 17.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 22470 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No. 72936 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No. 82079 of 2025, respectively by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that another juvenile co-accused was granted bail by the appellate court. The petitioner was declared juvenile vide the enquiry dated 03.01.2025 by the JJ Board Rohtas at Sasaram and his age was assessed to be 17 years 7 days at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that the learned subordinate courts erred in not following the mandate of Section 3 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which says principle of presumption of innocence has to be applied in the case of child in conflict with law. Further the bail could be denied to the petitioner only under Section 12 of the J.J.Act. Learned counsel further submits that the learned courts below have not considered that there are no material on record to show that release of CICL would likely bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, still the courts below have illegally and arbitrarily refused the prayer for bail of the CICL. The learned trial court entirely went on by its reasoning that the petitioner comes from an economically weaker family and needs special teaching pertaining to discipline etc. There were no material to show that the petitioner was in association of any known criminal or would com