Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile 'X' Through His Father vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ... ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:21824 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 413 of 2025
Juvenile 'X' through his father ...... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
------
05/ 05.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, learned
counsel for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside
judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of
2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and
also for quashing of order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Lohardaga in connection with Pesrar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024,
corresponding to G.R. No. 395 of 2024, registered under sections 302/201 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and he is aged about 16 years 10 months and
12 days. He submits that the petitioner has been arrested and has been remanded
in Remand Home since 02.04.2024 and since then he is behind the bar and now he
is in Remand Home since more than one year and four months. He submits that
Social Investigation Report was called from the Probation Officer, Lohardaga, which
is on record. He submits that in the social investigation report there is no adverse
remark against the petitioner and that aspect has not been correctly appreciated by
the learned appellate court. He further submits that there is no eye witness to the
occurrence. He submits that the guardian of the petitioner undertakes to keep the
petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and will prevent him from
associating with any known criminal and from associating with any known criminals
and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready
to swear an affidavit in this regard. He further submits that the petitioner is a
meritorious student and he has passed matriculation examination with 2 nd Division
in the light of annexure-2 series. He submits that one of the co-accused who
happens to be major, has been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in B.A. No. 7945 of 2024.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits
( 2025:JHHC:21824 )
that two mobile phones were recovered by the police from the possession of aide
of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement in view of that the prayer for
bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.
5. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles. On perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act,
2015, it is crystal clear that that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions
as contained in the Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for time being in
force. It is further crystal clear that bail to the juvenile is a rule and refusal of the
same is an exception and juvenile can be denied bail only on the following three
grounds (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.
6. From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of
the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are 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.
7. The Juvenile Justice Act is based on belief that children are the future
of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances,
they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford
to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would
be self-destructive for the society. At the same time if the peeking of the child in
custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then it
could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.
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 is
that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded
criminals 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 would defeat the ends of justice and
have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the
( 2025:JHHC:21824 )
revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate
court are based on heinousness of the offence. Thus, the judgment dated
10.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge (Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 and the
order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Lohardaga in connection with Pesrar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024, corresponding to
G.R. No. 395 of 2024 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the
orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.
10. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 02.04.2024 be
released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in
Pesrar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 395 of 2024,
registered under sections 302/201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Baleshwar Oraon) with two
sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile
Justice Board, Lohardaga, 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 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 September, 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, Lohardaga, on such a
periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
11. Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out that the
identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned
judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the
( 2025:JHHC:21824 )
juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v.
NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the
juvenile shall not be disclosed.
12. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural
guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile. The
Registry is directed to conceal the names of the juvenile from the cause list as well
as the record of this case so that the names and identities are not disclosed as
directed by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra).
13 This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A,
if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/A.F.R
