Oral Judgment:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State as well as the 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 petitioner/child in conflict with law (for brevity “CICL”) is being disclosed, which is against the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’), which mandates protection of disclosure of identity details of the CICL. Therefore, the identity details of the petitioner/CICL is being referred to in the cause title as ‘XXX’.

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

4. The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 challenging the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Supaul in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2026 whereby the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul, in JJB Case No. 24 of 2025, arising out of Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 registered under Section 65(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, refusing prayer for bail of the petitioner, has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that the opposite party no. 2 instituted Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 under Section 65(2) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner for committing rape with her five year old daughter. The daughter of the informant had gone for her studies in Aganwadi Kendra and the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape with her by taking her to a room near the Aganwadi.

6. The petitioner was arrested on 19.11.2025. The petitioner claimed himself to be juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul determined the age of the petitioner to be 15 years 10 months and 16 days on the date of commission of the offence as his date of birth was found to be 01.01.2010 and declared the petitioner as CICL vide order dated 15.12.2025.

7. The petitioner moved for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul. The Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 06.01.2026 passed in in JJB Case No. 24 of 2025, arising out of Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2026 in the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children Court, Supaul. The appellate court, vide order dated 01.04.2026, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul.

9. Being aggrieved by the two concurrent orders of the learned subordinate courts, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition before this Court.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of  the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are bad in law as well as on facts. The learned appellate court as well as learned Juvenile Justice Board passed the orders without considering the merits of the case. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below overlooked the provisions of law as laid down under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. The learned subordinate courts did not take into consideration the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Social Background Report (SBR) of the petitioner as the SIR is overwhelmingly in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the seriousness of allegation or gravity of offence could not be any consideration for refusal of bail to the petitioner. Both the courts below failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.11.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted. The learned subordinate courts, without any supporting materials, came to a finding that releasing the CICL on bail might expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and held that his return to the family may lead to exposure to potential risk and harm. Thus, learned counsel submits that there is no material to keep the petitioner in observation home and the orders impugned are not sustainable.

11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned APP for the State vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the petitioner was involved in commission of very heinous crime. The petitioner committed rape with five year old daughter of the informant and all the signs of rape were found on the minor child. Learned counsel also submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he might commit the same offence again.

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

13. Section 12 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear that a CICL could be denied bail only on the ground that on release, the said child would come in contact with criminal elements or there was danger to the moral, physical and psychological well being of the CICL or the release would defeat the ends of justice. If these grounds are not present, the bail could not be denied to a CICL.

14. Further, the Act of 2015 is, in fact, child friendly. The central theme is that the interest of child is supreme. Section 3 of the Act of 2015 incorporates the general principles to be followed in the administration of the Act. According to which, all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. In fact, Section 3(iv) of the Act of 2015 provides for the principle of best interest and for all decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential. Section 3(xii) of the Act of 2015 makes it abundantly clear that a child shall be placed in institutional care as a step of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry. Further, Section 3(xiii) of the Act of 2015 provides for Principle of repatriation and restoration providing that a CICL shall have the right to re-unite with his family and to be restored to the social, cultural and the economic background that he came from unless such restoration and repartition is not in the CICL’s best interest.

15. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions show the CICL should be released on bail unless the fact comes on record that there was chance of such child coming in contact with known criminals or enlarging such child on bail might expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Further, the courts being parens patriae are supposed to look into for protection of best interest of the child. All such steps are to be taken by the Courts for reformation and rehabilitation of a CICL.

16. Coming back to the facts of the present case, no doubt the offence alleged is quite serious and reprehensible, however, from the SIR and the SBR, I do not find any chance of petitioner coming into contact with any known criminals or the petitioner is having no guardianship. The SIR rather shows the petitioner might be repenting his act. Moreover, the purpose of the Act of 2015 is the reformation of the child and the institutionalization of a CICL is a matter of last resort and could not be resorted to thinking that such custody would allow to develop the mental and physical well being of the child and psychologically make him a good citizen. This is possible only under the guardianship of the parents and other family members. Since the condition mentioned in Section 12 of the Act of 2015 for denial of bail to the petitioner is not present in the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned subordinate courts committed error while passing their respective orders. Therefore, the orders impugned cannot be sustained.

17. Accordingly, the order dated 01.04.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2026 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Children Court, Supaul is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in JJB Case No. 24 of 2025 arising out of Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner is also set aside.

18. The petitioner, a CICL, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul/concerned court in connection with in JJB Case No. 24 of 2025, arising out of Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 232 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

                  i) One of the bailors will be the parents of the petitioner and other bailor will also be relative of the petitioner having no criminal antecedent and shall give undertaking that he/she shall keep proper care and upkeep of the petitioner.

                  (ii) The petitioner shall remain present before the Board on each and every date of trial of the case fixed by the Board.

19. The revision petition stands allowed.