Rejection of bail is unsustainable where the victim and prosecution witnesses fail to identify the accused.

The appellant, a 16-year-old "Child in Conflict with Law" (CCL), was accused of committing aggravated sexual assault upon a minor girl

The case was registered as Sundarpahari P.S. Case No. 32 of 2025 for offences under Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act

The Presiding Officer, Children Court, Godda, rejected the appellant's bail petition on January 29, 2026

During the trial (Children Case No. 01 of 2026), the prosecutrix (P.W.1) and two other witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) were examined; all three failed to identify the appellant and were declared hostile by the prosecution

Additionally, co-accused persons facing trial in the Special POCSO Court had already been admitted to bail

The appellant moved the High Court under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, challenging the denial of bail

1. Whether the Children Court committed a grave illegality in rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant despite the lack of identifying evidence from the victim and key witnesses

2. Whether the impugned order dated January 29, 2026, is sustainable in law given the hostile testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the bail granted to co-accused persons

Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which governs appeals against orders passed by a Children's Court

Section 70(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, regarding aggravated sexual assault, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act

The court also relied on the principle of parity in bail matters and the evidentiary standard that bail may be granted when the primary witnesses, including the victim, fail to implicate or identify the accused during the trial

The High Court found that the Children Court, Godda, erred significantly by overlooking the evidentiary status of the case

Specifically, the court noted that the prosecutrix (P.W.1) explicitly stated she had not seen her assailants and did not support the prosecution's case even when subjected to leading questions

Since neither the victim nor P.W.2 and P.W.3 identified the appellant, the court reasoned that there were no materials available on record to justify continued detention

The court further observed that the lower court failed to consider that similarly situated co-accused persons had already been granted bail

Consequently, the High Court determined that the refusal of bail was a "grave illegality" and the impugned order was "not sustainable in law"

The court held that the appellant was entitled to regular bail because no witnesses had stated anything to implicate him

The appellant was directed to be released on a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, on the condition that he cooperates with the ongoing trial