Jharkhand High Court

Juvenile 'X' vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... ..... .... ... on 7 October, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                 2025:JHHC:30905

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                   ----

Cr. Revision (Juvenile) No. 968 of 2025

----

          Juvenile 'X', through his mother ......      ....    ....   Petitioner(s)
                                     --   Versus    --
          The State of Jharkhand           ......      .....   ....   Opp. Party
                                           ----


        CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           ---
           For the Petitioner(s)     :-    Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate
           For the State             :-    Mrs Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP (Thr.V.C.)
                                           ----


2/07.10.2025     Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well

as the learned counsel appearing through Video Conferencing [V.C.] on behalf

of the respondent State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated

12.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge,

(Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2025 whereby the

prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Lohardaga

P.S. Case No.210 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.36 of 2025) registered for the offence

under section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending before the court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga.

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

and aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that

the allegations are made of Arms Act and nothing has been recovered from the

possession of the petitioner. He next submits that the arms has been recovered 1 Cr. Revision (Juvenile) No. 968 of 2025 from the possession of Rajesh Kumar who has been granted regular bail in B.A.

No. 5726 of 2025 and another coaccused person has been granted regular bail

in B.A. No.2896 of 2025. He then submits that the petitioner is being

represented by his mother and his mother is ready to give any undertaking to

the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical and

psychological danger and he then submits that the learned court has rejected

the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground of social investigation

report to the effect that the petitioner will be exposed to moral, physical or

psychological danger.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State appearing through Video

Conferencing (V.C) submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order,

however, she is not disputing the fact that the arms were recovered from the

possession of one Rajesh Kumar who has been granted regular bail as

aforesaid.

5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was aged about 16 years at

the time of alleged crime. The petitioner is in remand home since 23.10.2024

and is being represented by his mother and his mother is ready to give any

undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral,

physical or psychological danger and further, the arms were recovered from the

possession of one Rajesh Kumar who has been granted regular bail as well as

one another coaccused who has also been granted regular bail as aforesaid and

the learned court has been pleased to reject the bail application of the

petitioner only on the ground of social investigation report.

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 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 2 Cr. Revision (Juvenile) No. 968 of 2025 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.

7. 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.

8. In view of above discussions, the Court is satisfied that the reasoning and

conclusion of the learned appellate court to the effect that the petitioner will

come in association of the dreaded criminals and there is likelihood of the

petitioner being fell into moral, physical and psychological danger if released on

bail, not founded on reasonable grounds, 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 and 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 learned court has failed to

give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The

findings recorded by the learned court do not appear to be good ground, and in

that view of the matter, order dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, (Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal

Appeal No.56 of 2025 whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been

rejected in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.210 of 2024 (S.T. Case 3 Cr. Revision (Juvenile) No. 968 of 2025 No.36 of 2025), pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-

II, Lohardaga is, hereby, set-aside, and the present criminal revision petition is

allowed.

9. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 23.10.2024 be

released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother

(namely Chameli Kumari) in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.210 of

2024 (S.T. Case No.36 of 2025) to the satisfaction of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga, 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

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 4 Cr. Revision (Juvenile) No. 968 of 2025 investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile

Justice Board, Lohardaga, on such a periodical basis as the

Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

10. 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 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.

11. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural

guardian/mother. 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