The jurisprudence regarding bail for children in conflict with the law emphasizes rehabilitation over punitive measures, guided by the best interest principle.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 15-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/child in conflict with law and learned counsel for the State. There is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 though he has been served.

02. The instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Judgment/Order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Children Court)-cum-1st District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2025 arising out of Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 10/2025 registered for the offences under Sections 310(2), 311 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in JJB Case No. 27 of 2025 arising out of Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 10/2025 whereby and whereunder the learned J.J.Board, Rohtas at Sasaram rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

03. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a written report was given by the informant leading to institution of Nasriganj P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025 and the informant stated in the written report that he is an operator of sand ghat no. 30A, Nasriganj and in the night of 17/18.01.2025, 10-12 miscreants on four motorcycles reached the ghat of the informant and opened indiscriminate firing. They had been demanding money on gun point. They also assaulted the staff present there and lastly the miscreants fled away with Rs. 5 lakh kept in the cash box. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation for being involved in the said occurrence. On age determination the petitioner was found to be a child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’).

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner/CICL submits that the orders of the learned courts below are against the law as well as the facts existing on record. Learned counsel for the CICL submits that the name of the child transpired in this case on statement of co-accused Dipak Kumar who has been granted bail by the learned J.J. Board vide order dated 18.03.2025 in J.J.B. Case No. 27 of 2025. The prayer for bail of the CICL was rejected by the learned J.J. Board, Rohtas at Sasaram after which the CICL approached the learned Special Judge (Children Court)-cum-1st District and Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2025 which rejected the appeal of the CICL vide its order dated 29.05.2025 and affirmed the order of the learned J.J.Board. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from person or possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the orders of the learned sub-ordinate courts are not sustainable and are bad in law as well as on facts. The petitioner has been apprehended merely on suspicion. The learned courts below did not appreciate the objective of the Juvenile Justice Act which is not to punish the CICL but to reform them. The learned courts below did not consider the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act in its true perspective. Learned counsel further submits that the learned courts below have not considered that there are no material on record to show that release of CICL would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, still the courts below have illegally and arbitrarily refused the prayer for bail of the CICL. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the father of the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will take care of his son and will protect his son from anti-social elements and anti-social activities. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2025. The child has one antecedent but he is