A child in conflict with law should be released on bail unless there are specific circumstances suggesting danger to their welfare, as per the Juvenile Justice Act.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

4 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. From perusal of record, it transpires that in the revision petition, the identity details of the Juvenile is being disclosed, which is against the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which mandates protection of disclosure of identity of the juvenile in conflict with law. Therefore, the identity of the petitioner is being referred to in the cause title as XXXX.

3. Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.

4. The instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment/order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Munger in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in JJB Case No. 200 of 2024 arising out of Basudevpur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2024, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail, has been affirmed against the petitioner/child in conflict with law (for short ‘CICL’)

5. Briefly stated, facts of the case leading to the institution of the present petition are that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a case vide Basudevpur P.S. Case No. 80 of 2024 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging there in that on 23.09.2024 at 09:00 PM, the petitioner came to the house of the informant and took away the son of the informant/opposite party no. 2 with him. After one hour, the informant heard gun shot sound and the villagers saw the petitioner lifting the informant’s son. The villagers took the son of the informant to Sadar Hospital where during treatment, the informant’s son died. The informant/opposite party no. 2 showed her suspicion that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons were involved in the murder of her son. The petitioner/child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’) was taken in custody on 26.09.2024. The CICL moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger for grant of bail but his prayer was rejected vide order dated 30.05.2025. The CICL preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge (Children’s Court) Munger. The CICL approached this Court impugning the aforesaid two orders.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is a student and his detention is affecting his studies and development. The petitioner was declared juvenile by the J.J. Board, Munger as the age of the petitioner was assessed to be 14 years 07 months and 03 days on the day of occurrence and has got no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that the orders of the learned Courts below are bad in the eye of law as well as on facts. The Courts below have not considered the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of care and protection of his family by placing him in custody. Learned counsel further submits that all the witnesses including the informant have stated that the deceased and the CICL were best friends and as per testimonies, the CICL himself promptly took to the victim to the Sadar Hospital for treatment. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation itself against the petitioner is based on conjectures and surmises. The social investigation report/social background report do not make out any case to keep the CICL in custody. The same report also mentions about his friendly behaviour with neighbours and normal mental condition