Oral Judgment:

01. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SplPP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant.

02. The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioners for setting aside the judgment/order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge of Children Court, Munger in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger, in JJB Case No. 40 of 2025, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, refusing prayer for bail of the petitioners, has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.

03. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it appears from the record is that the informant instituted Muffasil P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 against all the FIR named accused persons for the offences under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act alleged that all the FIR named accused persons including the petitioners assembled at the house of coaccused Mintu Yadav while the informant and his family members were sitting at their door step and started indiscriminate firing upon the informant and his family members from the rooftop of coaccused Mintu Yadav who is father of the petitioners. In the alleged firing by the accused persons, the son of the informant died and one co-villager Golu Kumar got injured.

04. The petitioners were taken into custody on 16.03.2025. The petitioners claimed themselves to be juvenile on the date of commission of offence. The Juvenile Justice Board, Munger determined the age of the petitioner no. 1 to be 15 years 05 months and 08 days on the date of commission of the offence and petitioner no. 2 to be 14 years 07 months and 03 days on the date of commission of the offence and declared the petitioners as Children in Conflict with Law(in short “CICL”) vide orders dated 18.06.2025 and 25.06.2025, respectively.

05. The petitioners filed an application for grant of bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger but the Board rejected his application for bail vide order dated 15.07.2025 passed in in JJB Case No. 40 of 2025.

06. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025 in the court of learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge of Children Court, Munger. However, the appeal was also rejected by the learned appellate court vide order dated 27.08.2025 and upheld the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger.

07. Being aggrieved by the two concurrent orders of the learned subordinate courts, the petitioners moved before this Court in the present revision petition.

08. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 the petitioners are full brothers and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to old enmity and conspiracy . Learned counsel submits that previous enmity is evident from the FIR itself. The son of the informant and the co-villager received one gun shot injury each but the allegation of firing is general and omnibus against all the coaccused persons. There is no specific allegation that either of the petitioners were author of any of the two injuries sustained by the deceased son of the informant and co-villager Golu Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are students living in Patna with their mother and their continuous custody would be detrimental to their mental health and future career. The prayer for bail of the CICL has been rejected by a cursory order passed by the learned courts below in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below overlooked the provisions of law as laid down under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short ‘JJ Act’) wherein, bail is a matter of right of CICL except for conditions in the provision but none of the conditions is made out to deny bail to the petitioners who are in custody since 16.03.2025. The learned subordinate courts did not appreciate the report of the District Probation Officer, Social Background Report and Social Investigation Report in its right perspective. Further there is no material on record to hold that release of petitioners would bring them into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or their 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 mother and the maternal uncle of the petitioners have undertaken to take care of them and properly guide them so that the CICL are reformed and rehabilitated in the society. Learned counsel also submits that coaccused persons have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 20.02.2026, 15.05.2026 and 18.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 80761 of 2025, Cr. Misc. No. 33391 of 2026 and Cr. Misc. No. 17580 of 2026, respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have clean antecedent.

09. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned SplPP for the State vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR for firing and even the family members of the petitioners are accused in this case. Learned counsel also submits that the trial has proceeded and one witness has also been examined in this case. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is possibility that they might commit the same offence again.

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

11. Section 12 of the JJ Act, 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.

12. 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 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 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 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 repatriation is not in the CICL’s best interest.

13. Cumulative reading of aforesaid provisions show CICL should be released on bail unless the fact comes on record that there was chance of such children coming in contact with known criminals or enlarging such children on bail might expose them 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 CICL.

14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, though there is allegation for firing against the petitioners but the same is not specific against them. The prayer for bail of the petitioners have been rejected by the subordinate courts without considering the fact that nothing has come on record which may substantiate the belief that release of the petitioners would bring them into contact with any known criminals or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. The findings of the learned subordinate courts is not supported with any cogent material. 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 it has long been held that institutionalization of a CICL is never in his best interest as it has been felt that keeping a child in home environment expedites his reformation and joining the main stream. Moreover, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure the protection of the best interest of the CICL. The seriousness of allegation or gravity of offence could not be any consideration for refusal of bail to the petitioners. Therefore, taking a holistic view of the matter, 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.

15. Accordingly, the order dated 27.08.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025 by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge of Children Court, Munger is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in JJB Case No. 40 of 2025, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioners is also set aside.

16. The petitioners/CICL, are 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, Munger in JJB Case No. 40 of 2025, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:

                  i) One of the bailors will be the parents of the petitioners 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 petitioners shall remain present before the Board on each and every date of trial of the case fixed by the Board.

17. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed.

18. Office is directed to return the lower court records, if any. ­­