[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

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

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                          ( 2025:JHHC:36834 )




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Criminal Revision No. 1015 of 2025
            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. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate
            For the State             : Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.
                                            -----
02/09.12.2025     Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

            Ms. Mohua Palit, learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated

07.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in

Criminal Misc. Appeal No.89 of 2024, whereby, the learned appellate court

has been pleased to reject the prayer to release the petitioner-juvenile on bail

and has been pleased to affirm the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the

learned Special Judge, Children Court, Giridih in connection with Pachamba

P.S. Case No.50 of 2024, arising out of Children Case No.14 of 2024,

registered under Sections 366(A)/376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

4/6 of the POCSO Act, whereby, the prayer for bail of the juvenile has been

rejected and the case is pending in the Court of the learned Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

juvenile and he was aged about 16 years at the time of the alleged crime. He

further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 15.04.2024. He

then submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He also

submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. He next submits that

the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to

-1- Criminal Revision No. 1015 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:36834 )

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

moral, physical or psychological danger. He next submits that the father is

also ready to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in

good behaviour and character in future and will prevent him from associating

with any known criminal and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this

regard.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that

heinous allegation is there against the petitioner and if the petitioner will be

released, there is every likelihood that again he will be associated with the

criminals.

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 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

-2- Criminal Revision No. 1015 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:36834 )

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. 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 there is likelihood of moral, physical and

psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail, is not founded on

reasonable grounds.

8. 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 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 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I, Giridih in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.89 of 2024 and the order dated

09.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Giridih in

connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.50 of 2024, arising out of Children

Case No.14 of 2024 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence both

the judgment and order are, hereby, set-aside and the present criminal

revision is allowed.

                                 -3-                 Criminal Revision No. 1015 of 2025
                                                                  ( 2025:JHHC:36834 )

9. Let the revisionist who is in remand home since 15.04.2024 be released

on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in

Pachamba P.S. Case No. 50 of 2024, arising out of Children Case No.14 of

2024 after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Md. Shabuddin Ansari)

with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction

of Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih, 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; and

(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, Giridih,