Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile "X" Represented Through His ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:31768 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 214 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. Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Advocate
-----
05/14.10.2025 Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Akhilesh Singh,
learned counsel for the informant.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred challenging the
judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Spl. Judge (Children
Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024, whereby, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla has been affirmed.
The order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Sursang P.S. Case No.07 of
2023 corresponding to Spt. G.R. Case No.92 of 2023 is also under challenge,
by which, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged
about 14 years at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023. He then submits that the petitioner
is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give any
undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to moral,
physical or psychological danger. He next submits that the petitioner has got
-1- Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:31768 )
no criminal antecedent. He also submits that till date, nothing adverse has
come against the petitioner in the medical report and DNA report is still
awaited. He further submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for
about 2 ½ years. He next submits that the Social Investigation Report is also
in favour of the petitioner, wherein, it has been stated that there is nothing
to state that the petitioner will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological
danger. He also submits that both the learned Courts have rejected the prayer
for bail of the petitioner considering the gravity of the allegation. He next
submits that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,
2015 has not been rightly appreciated by both the Courts. He further submits
that the adult co-accused has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in B.A. No.7798 of 2023, vide order dated 23.11.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the State and informant jointly opposed the prayer
and submit that the allegations are there. Learned counsel for the State
submits that the case is arising under Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code
and the victim has also supported the case.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
it is an admitted position that the petitioner was aged about 14 years at the
time of alleged crime. The petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2023 i.e. about
2 ½ years. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has got no criminal
antecedent. The adult co-accused has been granted regular bail in the
aforesaid B.A. It appears that both the learned Courts have been pleased to
reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of offence.
The petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to
give undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any
-2- Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:31768 )
moral, physical or psychological danger.
6. For rejecting the bail, three ingredients in light of Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are required to
be considered, deals for bail to juveniles, i.e. (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 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 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 to the effect that there is likelihood that the
petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals and gravity
of the offence and there is likelihood of moral, physical and
psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail not founded on
reasonable grounds.
9. 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
-3- Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:31768 )
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 gravity of crime.
10. In view of the above facts, the judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed by
the learned Spl. Judge (Children Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.03 of
2024 and the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Sursang P.S.
Case No.07 of 2023 corresponding to Spt. G.R. Case No.92 of 2023 are,
hereby, set-aside.
11. Since the revisionist is in custody since 07.05.2023, he is directed to
be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural
guardian/father in connection with Sursang P.S. Case No.07/2023,
corresponding to Spt. G.R. Case No.92/2023, after furnishing a personal bond
of his father with two sureties of his relative each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla 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
-4- Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:31768 )
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 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 his 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.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of in above terms.
13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 14th October, 2025
Ajay/
-5- Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2025
