Denying juvenile bail is illegal where the victim and witnesses fail to identify the accused.

The appellants, Polus Tudu and Sikandra Marandi (both aged 17), were accused of committing aggravated sexual assault upon a minor victim girl in connection with Sundarpahari P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025.

The learned Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda, rejected their bail applications (Misc. Crl. Appl. No. 67/2026 and No. 68/2026) by a common order dated January 27, 2026.

During the trial in Children Case No. 01 of 2026, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) and other witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) were examined; however, they failed to identify the appellants and were declared hostile.

The appellants challenged the rejection of bail before the High Court under the Juvenile Justice framework.

1. Whether the common impugned order rejecting bail was sustainable in law despite the failure of the victim and material witnesses to identify the appellants during the trial.

Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, regarding the maintainability of appeals against orders of a Children Court.

Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which define and penalize aggravated sexual assault.

The principle of parity, noting that co-accused persons facing trial in the Special POCSO Court had already been admitted to bail.

The High Court determined that the Children Court committed a "grave illegality" by rejecting the bail prayer.

The court reasoned that since the victim (P.W.1) explicitly stated she had not seen her assailants and failed to identify the appellants even after being declared hostile and subjected to leading questions, there was no immediate evidence to implicate them.

This lack of identification was mirrored in the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3.

The Court found that the serious nature of the allegations alone could not justify the denial of bail when the evidence presented during the trial failed to link the Children in Conflict with Law (CCL) to the alleged offense.

The court held that the appellants were entitled to regular bail as the material witnesses failed to implicate them.

The appellants were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties, on the condition that they cooperate with the trial.