##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.560 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2024 Thana- AMNAUR District- Saran

======================================================

XXXX

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sunil Kumar Singh S/o- Madhusudan Singh R/v- Parshurampur Ps- Amnaur

Dist- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Opposite Parties

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate

For the OP-State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL ORDER

5 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State. Despite service of notice upon opposite party

no. 2, there is no representation on his behalf.

2. 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.

3. Registry while uploading the order on the website

shall also ensure that the cause title is reflected in similar

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.560 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026

2/11

manner.

4. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed

for setting aside the judgment dated 02.05.2025 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Children

Court), Saran at Chapra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 09 of

2024, whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court

upheld the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by learned Juvenile

Justice Board, Saran at Chapra in JJB Case No. 872 of 2024

arising out of Amnour P.S. Case No. 150 of 2024 registered

under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and

subsequently added Sections 302, 120(B) and 201 of IPC, by

which the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner/child in

conflict with law (for short 'CICL') has been refused.

5. The prosecution case, as per the First Information

Report, is that on 16.05.2024, in the night, at about 9:30 pm,

informant’s son, Alok Kumar, and his friend Rishav Kapoor,

came at the shop of the informant, took a bottle of cold drink,

and wen on a motorcycle, but till late night, the informant’s son

did not return. During search, the informant went to the house of

the co-accused Rishav Kapoor and asked about his son’s

whereabouts, upon which he told that he had dropped the

deceased at Sultan Pitch on his saying and he did not know

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.560 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026

3/11

anything about his whereabouts. During investigation, the dead

body of the informant’s son was found buried in an orchard. The

name of the petitioner transpired during investigation for being

involved in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner was declared

Juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at Chapra

and is taken in remand home since 31.08.2024. The CICL

moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saran at

Chapra for grant of bail but his prayer was rejected vide order

dated 16.01.2025. The CICL preferred an appeal which also

came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 02.05.2025 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge

(Children’s Court), Saran at Chapra. The CICL approached this

Court against the aforesaid two orders.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is child in conflict with law and the FIR was

registered against unknown and the name of the petitioner

transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused persons,

namely Rishav Kappor and Satyam Kumar Singh that the

petitioner along with co-accused Mahi Singh strangulated the

informant’s son with the help of towel, due to which he died.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was declared

Juvenile