The presumption of innocence and the best interests of the child should guide bail decisions for children in conflict with the law.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur and judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st - cum- Special Judge (Children Court), Bhagalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court while confirming the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur in Bihpur (Bhawanipur) P.S. Case No. 659 of 2023 refused to grant bail to the petitioner/child in conflict with law (for short 'CICL').

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that Bihpur (Bhawanipur) P.S. Case No. 659 of 2023 was registered under Section 3 94/411 of the Indian Penal Code on the written report of informant Golu Kumar for snatching of his motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-34 M-7847 by three miscreants. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation for being involved in the robbery. The age of the petitioner was assessed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhagalpur to be 16 years 05 months and 24 days on the date of occurrence. Thereafter, the prayer for bail was made before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. Vide order dated 22.05.2024, the learned Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the bail petition of the CICL. Subsequently, Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2024 was filed before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st -cum- Special Judge (Children Court), Bhagalpur and vide judgment dated 26.07.2024, 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 the FIR was registered against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Rajiv Kumar from whom the recovery of looted motorcycle was made. Learned counsel further submits that the learned JJ Board as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-special Judge (Children Court), Bhagalpur rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on unsustainable ground. 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 are no more and there is no one to take care of the petitioner and protect the life of the petitioner and he would fall in same bad company. Learned counsel further submits that the CICL is in custody since 30.10.2023 and is having antecedent of two cases and he was allowed bail in one case. However, husband of the cousin sister of the petitioner/CICL, who is deponent in the present case, undertakes to protect the life of the petitioner and also to take care of him so that he does not fall in bad company. Learned counsel further submits that keeping the petitioner in observation home would not serve any useful purpose and would not help in his proper development considering his age and it is not in the best interest of the petitioner who is CICL. Learned counsel referred to the decision of this Court in the case of S.K.Y. @ S.K.Y@ S.K. @ S Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.

(Criminal Revision No. 68 of 2025, decided on 01.12.2025), wherein in the similar circumstances, the prayer for bail of the same child in conflict with law was allowed.

5. Learned APP vehemently contends that the CICL does not deserve to be enlarged on bail and the orders have been rightly passed by the learned