Juvenile Justice promotes rehabilitation over punishment; bail should not be denied absent clear risk factors.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 15-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/child in conflict with law, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

02. The petitioner is a juvenile and the instant revision petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Judgment/Order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Saran at Chapra, in Criminal(Juvenile)Appeal No. 17 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in J.J.B. No. 927 of 2024 arising out of Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 282 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby and whereunder the learned J.J.Board, Saran at Chapra rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

03. Briefly stated, facts of the case is that the informant Chinta Devi, recorded her fardbayan on 10.10.2016 wherein she stated that due to previous enmity, the petitioner shot dead the husband of the informant. The FIR vide Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 282 of 2016 was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of the learned courts below are against the law as well as the facts existing on record. The petitioner was declared child in conflict with law (in short ‘CICL’) by the J.J. Board, Saran at Chapra vide order dated 18.11.2024. The petitioner approached the Juvenile Justice Board for grant of bail which was rejected and thereafter his appeal before the learned Children Court was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been denied bail on extraneous consideration. The petitioner is a victim of circumstances. The learned subordinate courts rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground of adversarial reports but the same were not supplied to the petitioner. There is no material on record to show that the release of the petitioner would 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 further submits that the CICL is in custody since 09.02.2024 and he has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. Learned counsel for the CICL also submits that the father of the CICL 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 also submits that the report of learned Probation Officer suggests that there is chance to reform the child and he may be released on bail for his rehabilitation. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are bad and the same needs to be set aside and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

05. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant oppose the prayer of the CICL. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there is specific allegation of shooting dead the husband of the informant against this CICL. Learned counsel further submits that the release of the CICL would affect the trial and the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL and hence the CICL does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

06. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the parties and the matter at hand.

07. 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 a