##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.645 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali

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

XXXX

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ratnesh Kumar S/o- Bhola Rai Village- Utari Gangajal Bakarpur Ps-

Rajapakar Dist- Vaishali

... ... Opposite Parties

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the O.P.-State : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

ORAL ORDER

5 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

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

manner.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.645 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026

2/11

4. The instant revision petition has been filed for

setting aside the Judgment/Order dated 18.06.2025 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge

(Children Court), Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Appeal No. 11

of 2025 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge

(Children Court) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and also

to set aside the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile

Justice Board, Vaishali at Hajipur rejecting the prayer of the

petitioner for bail in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 44 of 2025

arising out of Rajapakar PS Case No. 39 of 2025 for the

offences under Sections 115(2), 109, 303(2), 140(1), 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

5. Briefly stated, facts of the case leading to the

institution of the present petition are that the opposite party no.

2 lodged a case vide Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 39 of 2025 under

Sections 115(2), 109, 303(2), 140(1), 3(5) alleging there in that

in the night of 30.01.2025, the brother of the informant/opposite

party no. 2, namely Gautam Kumar, received a telephone call

from the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner arrived at the

door of the informant, took his brother away on his motorcycle.

After some time, the informant received a phone call from his

brother that the petitioner was attempting to kill him and his

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.645 of 2025(5) dt.29-01-2026

3/11

brother also told him that the petitioner along with other co-

accused persons forcibly abducted him and took him to some

other place and subjected him to severe physical assault. Due to

this assault, brother of the informant sustained injuries and he

was thrown out of the vehicle near six-lane highway at

Kalyanpur where the informant and his family members found

him unconscious. Thereafter, the informant’s brother was

admitted to CHC, Rajapakar and after that he was shifted to a

private hospital. The petitioner was declared juvenile by the

learned J.J. Board, Vaishali at Hajipur vide order dated

02.04.2025 as his age was 16 years and 10 months at the time of

alleged occurrence. The petitioner/child in conflict with law (in

short ‘CICL’) was taken in custody on 01.02.2025. The CICL

moved before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Vaishali at

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

dated 24.04.2025. The CICL preferred an appeal which also

came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum Special Judge

(Children’s Court) Vaishali at Hajipur. The CICL approached

this Court impugning the