[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Juvenile 'X' Represented Through ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 9 December, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                 2025:JHHC:36894




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                       Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2025
                                       ----

Juvenile 'X' represented through natural guardian and father namely Nandlal Lohra .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

             The State of Jharkhand                      .... Opposite Party
                                  ----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate

----

05/09.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting

aside the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35

of 2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge

(Children's Court), Gumla and order dated 02.12.2023 rejecting the

bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.1847 of 2023 in connection with

Spt. G.R. Case No.106 of 2023 arising out of FIR Gumla P.S. Case

No.163 of 2023 registered under Sections 376DA, 376DB, 323 and

504 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act, wherein

the bail of the petitioner was rejected pending in the Court of

learned J.J. Board, Gumla.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was juvenile aged about 18 years at the time of

alleged occurrence and the allegation against the petitioner is

--1--

Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 2025:JHHC:36894

heinous, however, petitioner is in custody for approximately two

years and four months and was taken in custody on 19.05.2023 and

was declared juvenile by order dated 13.10.2023 and was sent to

remand home on that day and he remained in custody for two years

six months and twenty days. He refers to Section 18(1)(g) of

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. He submits

that the petitioner is being represented by his natural

guardian/father namely Nandlal Lohra and he is ready to give

undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to

any moral, physical or psychological danger. He next submits that

the petitioner has spent substantial time in remand home and in

view of that he may kindly be granted bail. He also submits that the

trial is going on. He next submits that two of the juveniles have

been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Revision Nos.392 of 2025 and

1146 of 2024 by order dated 10.10.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the

learned Courts have rightly appreciated the fact and has rightly

rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing

for the parties, it is admitted position that the petitioner is juvenile

aged about 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence and he is in

remand home since 19.05.2023 and he remained in custody for two

years six months and twenty days and the petitioner is being

--2--

Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 2025:JHHC:36894

represented through natural guardian/father namely Nandlal Lohra

and he is ready to give undertaking to the effect that the petitioner

will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger

and both the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail

application of the petitioner considering the gravity of the crime

committed by the petitioner.

6. 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 appear 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. In light of 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

--3--

Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 2025:JHHC:36894

classification, whatsoever, provided in Section12 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 Juvenile Justice Act is based on relief 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

keeping 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.

9. In view of above discussion, the Court is not satisfied with

the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well

as Juvenile Justice Board 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, is not founded on reasonable grounds.

10. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds that reason

and conclusion of learned Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board and of

appellate court that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come

into the association of the persons due to which he will be exposed

--4--

Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 2025:JHHC:36894

to moral, physical or psychological danger, appears to be

unwarranted or unreasonable ground. The gravity of allegation is

only on the apprehension to the effect that they will be exposed to

moral, physical or psychological danger and the bail has been

rejected and mandatory provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act as well as other provisions

relating to a juvenile declined to grant bail on the basis of

unwarranted apprehension, appears to be not a good ground. In

absence of any material on apprehension of reasonable ground that

they will be exposed, it cannot be said that his release would defeat

the ends of justice and both the learned Courts 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 heinousness of the offence.

Thus, the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35

of 2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge

(Children's Court), Gumla and order dated 02.12.2023 in Misc.

Criminal Application No.1847 of 2023 in connection with Spt. G.R.

Case No.106 of 2023 arising out of FIR Gumla P.S. Case No.163 of

2023 pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Gumla is hereby set aside and this criminal revision

petition is allowed.

11. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since

--5--

Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 2025:JHHC:36894

19.05.2023 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by

his natural guardian/father namely Nandlal Lohra, in connection

with Spt. G.R. Case No.106 of 2023 arising out of FIR Gumla P.S.

Case No.163 of 2023 after furnishing a personal bond of his natural

guardian/father namely Nandlal Lohra with two sureties of his

relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned

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 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 January, 2026, 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. Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out

that the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been

--6--

Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2024 2025:JHHC:36894

disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the

right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa

Mittal v. NCT Delhi, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein it

was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.

13. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through

his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name

of the juvenile.