Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Machua vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 November, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:33005]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1012 of 2025
Chandan Machua, aged about 16 Years, son of
Shivnath Machua represented through his mother
and natural guardian Arti Machhuwain, resident of
Jojohatu, Dalbhanga, Post Kuchai, Police Station
Kuchai, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
------
03/ 04.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the
order dated 21.05.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, in connection with POCSO Case No.
15 of 2025 arising out of Kuchai (Dalbhbaga O.P.) P.S. Case No. 20 of
2025, registered for the offence under Sections 96/3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act, whereby the
prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected and further prayer is
made for setting aside the judgment dated 04.08.2025, passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella, whereby the
order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
Seraikella has been confirmed by the learned appellate court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a juvenile and aged about 16 years at the time of
alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home
since 10.04.2025. He then submits that the co-accused, who is father of
[2025:JHHC:33005]
the petitioner has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 8201 of
2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court. He next submits that the
petitioner is being represented by his mother and she is ready to give
any undertaking and she will take care of the child and she will not
allow him to accompany any known criminal and she will not allow
him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she
is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He then submits that
both the learned courts have been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of
the petitioner considering the gravity of crime. He also submits that
both the learned courts have not considered the provisions of Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in
its right perspective. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner
may kindly be allowed the regular bail.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the
prayer and submit that the allegations are heinous, as such, the
petitioner is required to remain in remand home and both the learned
Courts have rightly passed the order.
5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a juvenile and
aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime and he is in remand
home since 10.04.2025 and he is being represented by his mother and
further her mother is ready to take care of the child and the co-accused,
who is the father of this petitioner has already been granted regular bail
in B.A. No. 8201 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench.
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 the 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
[2025:JHHC:33005]
moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person's release
would defeat the ends of justice.
7. Section 12 of the said Act further stipulates 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.
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.
8. It appears that both the learned courts have been pleased to
reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner considering the seriousness of
the alleged crime and 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 21.05.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, in connection with POCSO Case No.
[2025:JHHC:33005]
15 of 2025 arising out of Kuchai (Dalbhbaga O.P.) P.S. Case No. 20 of
2025 as well as the judgment dated 04.08.2025, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 28 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella, are not sustainable in
the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present
criminal revision is allowed.
9. Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since
10.04.2025, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his
natural guardian / mother, in connection with POCSO Case No. 15 of
2025 arising out of Kuchai (Dalbhbaga O.P.) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025
after furnishing personal bond on his mother (Arti Machhuwain) with
two sureties of her relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, subject to the following
conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/mother 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/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 December, 2025, and if
during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday,
[2025:JHHC:33005]
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.
10. With the above observation, this criminal revision is
allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-04.11.2025
Amitesh/-
