Bail for juveniles must prioritize their best interests and presumed innocence, with a focus on avoiding harm and reassessing social circumstances.

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 seeking bail in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 364(A)/34 of IPC and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act and for setting aside the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya and judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court while confirming the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Misc. No. 490 of 2024, arising out of Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 74 of 2024, refused to grant bail to the petitioner/child in conflict with law (for short 'CICL').

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the minor son of the informant was kidnapped and the kidnappers demanded Rs. 40 lacs of ransom amount and threatened that in case the ransom amount was not paid, they would kill the son of the informant. The informant named a number of persons whom he suspected to be involved in kidnapping of his son and ransom demand. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation for being involved in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner was declared juvenile vide order dated 25.11.2024 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya and his age was assessed to be 16 years 03 months and 23 days on the date of occurrence. Thereafter, the prayer for bail was made before the learned Juvenile Justice Board. Vide order dated 04.12.2024, the learned Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the bail petition of the CICL. Subsequently, Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2025 was filed before the court of learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya and vide judgment dated 06.02.2025, 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 he has committed no offence. The petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he has any concern with the alleged kidnapping of the son of the informant. The petitioner used to live in Nawada for his study and on one occasion he sat with his friend in the Bolero vehicle, but he was not knowing about kidnapping of the son of the informant who was kept in the same vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the learned subordinate courts refused the prayer for bail of the petitioner without appreciation of facts and circumstances and the law applicable. Learned counsel further submits that both the subordinate courts went by the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report which showed that there was lack of supervision by the parents of the petitioner. Further, the planned manner of occurrence and possibility of recidivism of a CICL due to economic greed and lack of proper supervision and peer group were held to be against enlarging the petitioner on bail. However, the learned courts below wrongly held that granting privilege of bail was detrimental to moral, physical and mental health of the petitioner. But the courts below did not consider the well being of a juvenile and did not exercise their jurisdiction vested upon it by the law. The courts did not consider that if the petitioner is kept in an observation home, he would be more likely to come into contact with persons of criminal nature, and that might adversely affect him physically and mentally, whereas the guardians of the petitioner are ready and willing to t