1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Appeal (SJ) has been filed under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenil Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the common impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda in Misc. Crl. Appl. No.67/2026 and Misc. Crl. Appl. No.68/2026 in connection with Children Case No.01 of 2026 corresponding to Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 70 (2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, whereby the bail petition filed by the Children in Conflict with Law, has been rejected.

3. The allegation against the appellants is that the appellants have committed aggravated sexual assault upon a minor victim girl.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Children Court has failed to consider that the prosecutrix, in Children Case No.01 of 2026, has been examined as P.W.1 and she has not identified the appellants and stated that she has not seen any of her assailants and though she was declared hostile and prosecution put leading questions to her; still she did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, the learned Children Court failed to consider that the P.W.2 and P.W.3 have also been examined and they have also not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile and they have also not identified the appellants-Children in Conflict with Law. It is further submitted that the learned children Court also failed to consider that co-accused persons namely Fate @ Surendra Murmu @ Surendra Marandi and Edward Marandi @ Edwad Marandi who are facing trial in the court of Special Judge, POCSO, Godda, have already been admitted to bail. Hence, it is submitted that the common impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda inter alia in Misc. Crl. Appl. No.67/2026 and Misc. Crl. Appl. No.68/2026 in connection with Children Case No.01 of 2026 corresponding to Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025, be set aside and the appellants be admitted to bail.

5. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellants and submits that keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the appellants, the learned Children Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting their prayer for bail. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Appeal (SJ), being without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that the learned Children Court, Godda has committed a grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellants when neither the victim herself nor the other witnesses examined in this case, have stated anything to implicate the appellants in this case; as none of them have identified the appellants. Under such circumstances, the common impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda inter alia in Misc. Crl. Appl. No.67/2026 and Misc. Crl. Appl. No.68/2026 in connection with Children Case No.01 of 2026 corresponding to Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, the common impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda inter alia in Misc. Crl. Appl. No.67/2026 and Misc. Crl. Appl. No.68/2026 in connection with Children Case No.01 of 2026 corresponding to Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 is quashed and set aside and the prayer for regular bail of the appellant is allowed.

8. The appellants, named above, are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda in connection with Children Case No.01 of 2026 corresponding to Sundarpahari P.S. Case No.32 of 2025 with the condition that they will co-operate with the trial of the case.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (SJ), is allowed.