Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile 'X' Through His Mother vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:24855 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 612 of 2025
Juvenile 'X' through his mother ...... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Victim ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, A.P.P.
------
04/ 22.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, learned
counsel for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment
dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella, in Criminal Appeal (Bail) No. 18 of
2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and
order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 44/2025, registered
under sections 108, 3(5) of B.N.S, 2023, has been affirmed, pending in the
Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is aged about 16 years and he is being represented through his mother as
the father is no more. He submits that the girl is aged about 19-20 years and
she has committed suicide. He further submits that petitioner has not written
any letter to her and false allegation is made against the petitioner. He
submits that the petitioner is in Remand Home since 21.02.2025. He submits
that Social Investigation Report is on record and there is no adverse remark
against the petitioner. He further submits that mother of the petitioner
undertakes that she will take care of the petitioner and she will not allow to
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and
submits that allegations are there against the petitioner due to that victim
has committed suicide and in view of that the prayer for bail of the petitioner
may kindly be rejected.
5. The petitioner happens to be a juvenile that is not denied by the
learned counsel for the State and the mother is ready to give undertaking
that she will take care of the petitioner.
( 2025:JHHC:24855 )
6. In the light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, 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.
7. 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. The Court finds that both the Courts have rejected the bail on
the ground of exposing the person to moral, physical or psychological danger
or would defeat the ends of justice.
9. In view of above discussions, the Court finds that the
reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile
Justice Board is not good one.
10. 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 revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well
as appellate court are based on exposing the person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, the judgment
dated 09.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (Bail) No. 18 of 2025 and order
dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella in
connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 44/2025, are not sustainable in the
eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal
revision is allowed.
11. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 21.02.2025
be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural
guardian/mother, in Adityapur P.S. Case No. 44/2025 after furnishing a
personal bond on his mother (Indu Kuwar) with two sureties of respectable
persons of that village in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile
Justice Board, Seraikella, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/mother will furnish an undertaking that upon
( 2025:JHHC:24855 )
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/mother 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/mother 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, Seraikella on such a periodical basis
as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
12. This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.
Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
