IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No. 82 of 2025 In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4872 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2024 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar ======================================================

XXXX ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Yogesh Singh S/o- Late Shiv Pujan Singh Village- Charwaha Vidhyalay Manihari Ps- Manihari Dist- Katihar ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr.Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

02. From perusal of record, it transpires that in the revision petition, the identity details of the Juvenile is being disclosed, which is against the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which mandates protection of disclosure of identity of the juvenile in conflict with law. Therefore, the identity of the petitioner is being referred to in the cause title as XXXX.

03. Registry while uploading the order on the website shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar manner.

04. The present petition has been filed for setting aside the Judgment/Order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st-cum- Children Court, Katihar passed in Cr. Appeal No. 10/2024 whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.07.2025 passed by the learned JJ Board, Katihar rejecting the prayer for bail by the petitioner in GR No. 1284 of 2024 in connection with Manihari P.S. Case No. 57 of 2024 for the offences under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC has been affirmed thereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner/child in conflict with law was rejected by both the courts.

05. Briefly stated facts of the case is that the petitioner took away 1 year and 8 months old daughter of the informant to his house and committed rape with her. Thereafter the coaccused persons, in order to destroy the evidence, throttled the victim girl and threw her dead body in a bamboo clump.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was investigated by the police but no evidence of rape was found and charge sheet has been submitted under Section 302/201 of the IPC only against the petitioner while other coaccused persons were not sent up for facing trial. Subsequently cognizance has been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO court, Katihar. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was declared to be a Child in Conflict with Law (in short ‘CICL’).

07. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Subordinate Courts did not consider the facts of the case and law applicable in the case of the petitioner for grant of bail. The petitioner is aged only about ten years and no substantive material has come up on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. The allegation of rape was not proved. The parties are neighbours and there is enmity between them. Except for confessional statement of the petitioner there is no material against him. When the probation officer has been making inquiry, in the social investigation report it has come that the CICL stated that he was assaulted and was forced to confess. In the second statement, it has come that he only throttled the victim girl. Therefore there is contradictory statement even in the social investigation report. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts went upon the allegation of severity of offences but under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short ‘JJ Act’) seriousness of allegation cannot be ground for rejection of prayer for bail of the CICL. The prayer for bail could be rejected only on the g