The presumption of innocence and best interests standard governs bail considerations for juveniles in conflict with law, per Juvenile Justice Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. However, there is no representation on behalf of the informant though vakalatnama has been filed.

2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st -cum- Special Judge, Children Court, Saharsa in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 and the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in J.J.B. 31 of 2024, arising out of Salkhua P.S. Case No. 240 of 2022 registered for the offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, whereby and whereunder both the courts below refused to grant bail to the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband of the informant was shot at by six miscreants, who died in course of his treatment. The petitioner and co-accused Sanjiv Yadav are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased and other co-accused persons fired upon him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was declared child in conflict with law vide order dated 29.02.2024 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa and his age was assessed to be 17 years 7 months and 7 days on the alleged date of occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that there is no specific allegation of firing against the petitioner who has been roped in the present case due to previous enmity. The informant is not an eye witness. But the learned subordinate courts did not consider the facts and circumstances and passed the order rejecting the prayer for bail considering the gravity of the offence and manner of the offence. The petitioner and other co-accused persons are having criminal antecedent and this fact also weighed upon the mind of the courts below. But in the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act the nature and gravity of the offence are not to be seen. Though there is mentioning of the fact that all the family members have been absconding and there was danger to the life of the petitioner, the same is not correct. The mother of the petitioner is deponent in the present case and she has undertaken to take care of the petitioner so that he dos not fall in bad company. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the petitioner has been sought from the Probation Officer who has given a favourable report and from report it shows that the petitioner, even if released on bail, would continue to maintain good conduct. There is no complaint against the petitioner whie he has been staying in the place of safety. Learned counsel further submits that the similarly placed co-accused Sanjiv Yadav has been granted regular bail vide order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71776 of 2024 by a Co-ordinate Bench. Learned counsel further submits there is nothing adverse against the present petitioner to deny him bail. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2024. For non-consideration of aforementioned facts by the courts below, their order could not be sustained.

5. Learned APP opposes the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the learned subordinate courts have considered the fact that the petitioner is himself having criminal antecedent and his associates are also having criminal antecedent. So, considering these facts and also the social investigation report which mentions about his family members absconding and petitioner might have danger to life if enlarged on bail, the learned subordinate courts rejected the prayer for bail.

6. I have given my thoughtful c