The presumption of innocence and best interest of the child are paramount in juvenile justice proceedings.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Children Court, Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 06 of 2025 as well as order dated 03.01.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in J.J.B. No. 1053 of 2024, arising out of Garkha P.S. Case No. 620 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 69 of B.N.S. and 67(A) I.T. 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 informant a 19 years old lady, gave her written report that on the pretext of solemnization of marriage, the petitioner sexually exploited her and made video and took her photographs. He used to demand money from her and when she refused, the petitioner made the objectionable photographs of the informant viral on Instagram and Whatsapp. The petitioner was declared child in conflict with law vide order dated 16.12.2024 and his age was assessed to be 17 years and 22 days on the alleged date of occurrence. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as Children Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection orders of the courts below are not speaking and do not give any cogent reason and are against the best interest of the child in conflict with law. Both the courts below did not consider the social investigation report of the Probation Officer wherein it has been mentioned that the mother of the child in conflict with law wanted to keep him in her care and further wanted to him to continue his studies. The social investigation report gave a favourable report about release of the petitioner under supervision of the Probation officer. Learned counsel further submits that it was a case of love affair and both the petitioner and informant eloped and both of them wanted to solemnize their marriage. However, due to refusal of the family of the child in conflict with law, the marriage could not be solemnized. Even in the conduct report there is mention that during his stay in observation home, the conduct of the petitioner is cordial and disciplined. The petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 02.10.2024. Learned counsel further submits that in the best interest of the child, he needs to be released on bail if the impugned order suffers from illegality, impropriety and irregularity.

5. Learned APP opposes the contention made on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the learned courts below found reasonable ground that release of the petitioner would bring him in association with the criminals or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

7. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:-

“ Section 12 Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.

1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the