Jharkhand High Court

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

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                            2025:JHHC:30888

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

Cr. Revision No. 966 of 2025

----

          Juvenile 'X', through his father        ......      ....    ....      Petitioner(s)
                                      --         Versus    --
          The State of Jharkhand                  ......      .....   ....      Opp. Parties
                                                  ----
        CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                      ---
           For the Petitioner(s)      :-          Mr. Sudhansu Kr Deo, Advocate
           For the State              :-          Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Advocate
                                                  ----
2/07.10.2025     Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well

as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment

dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Children

Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No.23 of 2025 whereby the

appeal preferred against the order dated 28.7.2025 passed by learned Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar has been affirmed in connection

with Sarath (Pathradda O.P.) P.S. Case No.45 of 2025, registered for the offence

under section 70(2) of BNS, and section 4(2), 6(1) of POCSO Act, pending

before the court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,

Deoghar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged

about 16 years at the time of alleged crime and he is a juvenile. He further

submits that the petitioner has dropped the victim at her residence. He next

submits that the petitioner is victim of the circumstances and on a wrong notion

the petitioner has been arrested. He then submits that the petitioner has got no

criminal antecedent and he is a student of Class IX and pursuing his studies at

Utkramit High School, Binjha. He next submits that the petitioner is being

represented by his father and his father is ready to give any undertaking to the

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

psychological danger and the petitioner is in remand home since 16.05.2025.

He then submits that both the learned courts have rejected the bail application

of the petitioner only on the ground of gravity of charge.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that both the learned

courts have rightly passed the order as it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner

can be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

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

the time of alleged crime. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has

dropped the victim at her residence and the petitioner was arrested. In the

contents of the FIR the allegations are made against the accused Dipak Das,

however, in the last two lines, a vague allegation is made against the petitioner

and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is being represented

by his father and his father is ready to given any undertaking to the effect that

the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological

danger.

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 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 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,

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 to decline bail to the juvenile appears to be 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,

judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum

Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No.23 of 2025 as well

as the order dated 28.7.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Deoghar, in connection with Sarath (Pathradda O.P.) P.S. Case

No.45 of 2025, pending before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Deoghar, are hereby, set-aside, and the present criminal revision petition

is allowed.

9. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 16.05.2025 be

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

(namely Avadhesh Das @ Awadhesh Mahra @ Avdhesh Das) in connection with

Sarath (Pathradda O.P.) P.S. Case No.45 of 2025, registered for the offence

under section 70(2) of BNS, and section 4(2), 6(1) of POCSO Act, after

furnishing a personal bond on his father, named above, with two sureties of his

relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, 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 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, Deoghar, 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/father. 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

as directed by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra).

12 This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if