Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile "X" Represented Through His ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:31763 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 2024
Juvenile "X" represented through his father ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
-----
05/14.10.2025 Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Bishunpur P.S. Case No.12/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.438/2024 registered for the offence under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. The judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge (Children's Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal Case No.438/2024 is also under challenge, by which, the order passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla has been confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged crime. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2024. He then submits that the allegation has been made under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, however, in the medical report, nothing has come. He next submits that the petitioner is being
-1- Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:31763 ) represented by his father and the father is ready to give any undertaking that the petitioner will not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. He also submits that both the learned Courts have rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner considering the gravity of the allegation. He further submits that the learned appellate court has taken additional ground in rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is a barber and he has no control over his son. According to him, Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 has not been rightly appreciated by both the Courts.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegation is serious and in view of that, both the Courts have rightly passed the orders.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged crime and he has got no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 24.06.2024. The petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give any undertaking that the petitioner will not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner considering gravity of the crime and the learned appellate court has further held that the father of the petitioner has got no control over his son and in absence of any cogent reason, that finding appears to be not in consonance with Section 12 of the said Act.
6. For rejecting the bail, three ingredients in light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are required to
-2- Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:31763 ) be considered, deals for bail to juveniles, i.e. (i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person's release would defeat the ends of justice.
7. From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile is also no relevant consideration for denial of bail above 16 years of age and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 with regard to grant of bail. Section 12 of the Act is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature.
8. In view of above discussions, the Court is satisfied that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals and gravity of the offence and there is likelihood of moral, physical and psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail not founded on reasonable grounds.
9. The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and the mandatory provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions relating to the juvenile has declined to grant bail to the juvenile on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release
-3- Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:31763 ) would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on gravity of crime.
10. In view of the above facts, the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Bishunpur P.S. Case No.12/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.438/2024 and the judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge (Children's Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal Case No.438/2024 are, hereby, set-aside.
11. Since the revisionist is in observation home since 24.06.2024, he is directed to be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father in connection with Bishunpur P.S. Case No.12/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.438/2024, after furnishing a personal bond of his father with two sureties of his relative each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla subject to the following conditions: -
(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate
-4- Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 2024 ( 2025:JHHC:31763 ) level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.
(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of November, 2025, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.
(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of in above terms.
13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 14th October, 2025
Ajay/
-5- Criminal Revision No. 1218 of 2024