A child's presumption of innocence and best interests are paramount in bail considerations.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. However, despite service of notice none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. Since both the criminal revision petitions arise out of Dighwara P.S. Case No. 327 of 2024 they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Both the criminal revision petitions have been filed for setting aside the judgments dated 24.04.2025 and 27.05.2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Children Court, Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal Nos. 18 of 2025 and 22 of 2025, respectively and the orders dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in J.J.B. No. 1187 of 2024, arising out of Dighwara P.S. Case No. 327 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of B.N.S., whereby and whereunder both the courts below refused to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Dighwara P.S. Case No. 327 of 2024 being lodged on the fardbeyan of one Darbari Prasad Rai where he stated that his elder brother was assaulted by the petitioners and other co-

accused persons and the victim was taken to Primary Health Centre from where he was referred to PMCH. While undergoing treatment, the brother of the informant died.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were declared juvenile vide order dated 02.01.2025 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra and their age was assessed to be 15 years 7 months and 2 days and 16 years 9 months and 8 days, respectively on the alleged date of occurrence. From the FIR it is apparent that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioners rather the allegations are omnibus and general. The deceased was having no enmity with the petitioners or their family. He was having enmity with co-accused Mukhiya Ram Ayodhya Rai. Learned counsel further submits that the learned courts below did not consider the material available on record. There is no material to show that the petitioners participated in the alleged occurrence. Further, there is no ground of apprehension that the release of the petitioners would bring them in association with the criminals or expose them to moral physical or psychological danger or their release would defeat the ends of justice. The learned appellate court committed an error in rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioners because the impugned orders do not show that the social background report or social investigation report of the petitioners are bad. The father of the petitioners undertake to take care of the well being of the petitioners and produce them before the learned Juvenile Justice Board as and when required. The learned courts below failed to take into account the best interest of the children in conflict with law and further failed to appreciate that there is hardly any material to show their involvement in the said occurrence. The petitioner Anand Kumar is a meritorious student and passed matriculation examination in 2024 in First Division whereas petitioner Vishal Kumar has passed Intermediate Examination in First Division. The petitioners voluntarily surrendered before the court on 19.11.2024 and since then they are in custody and there is no ground of apprehension that the release of the petitioners would bring them in association with the criminals or expose them to moral physical or psychological danger or their release would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, lear