Jharkhand High Court

Juvenile 'X' vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                    2025:JHHC:31414
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                        ----

Cr. Revision No. 392 of 2025

----

1.Juvenile 'X', represented through natural guardian/elder brother, namely, Sumit Kerketta

2.Juvenile 'Y', represented through natural guardian/Father, namely, Nandlal Lohra .... ..... .... Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Informant ..... ..... .....Opp. Parties With Cr. Revision No. 1146 of 2024

----

Juvenile 'X', represented through his mother/natural guardian, namely, Siska Khadiyain ...... .... .... Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --

            The State of Jharkhand          ...... .....     ....   Opp. Party
                                            ----
          CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                ---
             For the Petitioner(s)     :-Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
             For the State             :-Mrs Anuradha Sahay, Advocate
                                         Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, Advocate
           For JHALSA              :-    Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
           For Victim/Informant    :-    Mr. Amlan Palit, Advocate
                                         ----
5/10.10.2025     Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) as

well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State and

the victim/informant.

2. It transpires that both the cases are arising out of same F.I.R and that is

why, both the matters are being heard together.

3. In Criminal Revision No.392 of 2025, prayer has been made for setting

aside the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024,by

learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum-Spl.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 Spl.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of

FIR Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023 under section 376DA, 376DB, 323, 504 of

IPC and section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, wherein the bail of the petitioners were

rejected, the matter is pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board,

Gumla.

4. In Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2024, prayer has been made for setting

aside the judgment dated 4.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge

(Children Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2023, which was filed

challenging the bail rejection order dated 02.12.2023passed by learned Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Spt.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023,

arising out of Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023, pending before the learned

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla.

5. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in Criminal

Revision No.392 of 2025, the petitioner no.1 are aged about 13 years and

petitioner no.2 is aged about 15 years and in Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2024

the petitioner is aged about 13 years.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who were

at the time of alleged crime, were juvenile and allegation against the petitioners

are heinous, however, the petitioners are in custody for approximately two

years and four months and they have been taken in custody on 19.05.2023. He

also refers to section 18 (1)(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act and further submits that the petitioner nos.1 and 2, in Criminal

Revision No.392 of 2025, are being represented through natural guardian/Elder

Brother, namely, Sumit Kerketta and natural guardian/Father, namely, Nandlal

Lohra, respectively and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.4611 of 2024 is

being represented through his mother/natural guardian, namely, Siska

Khadiyain. They further submit that the natural guardian/ elder brother of the

petitioner no.1 in Cr.Rev.No.392 of 2025 and natural guardian/ Father represent

these petitioners and petitioner in Cr.Rev.No.4611 of 2024 is being represented

through his natural guardian/ mother, as aforesaid, are ready to undertake to

the effect that these petitioners will not be exposed to any moral, physical or

psychological danger. They next submit that these petitioners have spent

substantial time in remand house and in view of that, they may kindly be

granted bail. They submit that however the trial is going on.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned courts

have rightly appreciated the fact and has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the

petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the informant in Cr.Rev. No.392 of 2025 opposed the

prayer and submits that heinous crime has been made by the petitioners and in

view of that, the petitioners may not be released on bail. He also submits that

the victim compensation may kindly be directed to be paid to the victim.

9. In view of the above, it transpires that the allegations against the

petitioners are serious in nature and the petitioners are in custody for about

two years and four months and they are in remand home since 19.05.2023 and

the petitioners are being represented through their natural guardians as noted

in the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

and they are ready to give undertaking to the effect that petitioners will not be

exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned courts

have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioners considering

the gravity of the crime committed by the petitioners.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. The Juvenile Justice Act is based on belief 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.

13. In view of above discussions, the Court is not satisfied with 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, is not founded on

reasonable grounds.

14. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds sufficient reason and

conclusion of learned Magistrate/ Juvenile Justice Board that there is likelihood

that the petitioners will come into the association of the persons due to which

they will be exposed 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 the 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 their release would defeat the end 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, order

dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024, by learned

Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum-Spl.Judge (Children's Court), Gumla, and

order dated 02.12.2023 in Misc. Criminal Application No.1847 of 2023 in

connection with Spl.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of FIR Gumla PS Case

No.163 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla,

and, judgment dated 4.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Children

Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2023, which was filed challenging the

order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Gumla in Spt.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of Gumla PS Case

No.163 of 2023, pending before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Gumla are, hereby, set-aside and both these criminal revision

petitions are allowed.

15. Let the revisionists who are in observation home since 19.05.2023 be

released on bail via assurance and surety given by their natural guardian being,

in case of petitioner nos.1 and 2, in Criminal Revision No.392 of 2025, being

represented through natural guardian/Elder Brother, namely, Sumit Kerketta and

natural guardian/Father, namely, Nandlal Lohra, respectively, and the petitioner

in Criminal Revision No.4611 of 2024 being represented through his

mother/natural guardian, namely, Siska Khadiyain in connection with

Spl.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of FIR Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023

(in Cr.Rev. No.392 of 2025) and in Spt.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of

Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023 (in Cr.Revision No.1146 of 2024), respectively,

after furnishing personal bond of their Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father

and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid, with two sureties of their relatives each

in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, subject

to the following conditions:

(i) Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid in both the cases, will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionists 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 they will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid, will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juveniles will pursue their study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste their time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

(iii) Juvenile and Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid, will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of November, 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 their 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.

16. Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out that

the identity of the juveniles in the present matter has been disclosed in the

impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and

confidentiality of the juveniles 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.

17. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists through

their natural guardian/elder brother, father and mother, respectively. The

memo of parties discloses the name of the juveniles. The Registry is directed

to conceal the names of the juveniles 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).