Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile 'X' Through His Father vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ... ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:27775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
------
Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025
Juvenile 'X' through his father ...... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
With
Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025
Juvenile 'X' through his father ...... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr Tiwari, Advocate
Mrs.Anuradha Sahay, Advocate
------
05/11.09.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for State.
2. In Criminal Revision No.436 of 2025, the prayer has been made for
setting aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.06/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000221-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge,
Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile
Case No.02 of 2025 lodged under section 140(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (charge
sheet submitted under section 140(1), 65(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 6 of
POCSO, Act) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed
as the aforesaid appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed
in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025
vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Pakur has rejected the bail of the petitioner, and the case is pending before the
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur.
3. As the Cr. Revision No.437 of 2025 is arising out of same F.I.R,
however, the Appeal number and impugned order are different and in view of
that, both the criminal revision petitions have been taken together.
4. In Criminal Revision No.437 of 2025, the prayer has been made for
-1- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &
2025:JHHC:27775
setting aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.05/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000220-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge,
Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile
Case No.02 of 2025 lodged under section 140(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (charge
sheet submitted under section 140(1), 65(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 6 of
POCSO, Act) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed
as the aforesaid appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed
in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025
vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Pakur has rejected the bail of the petitioners, and the case is pending before the
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners
has been falsely implicated in this case and both the petitioners are aged about 15
years and 16 years, respectively at the time of alleged crime and they are in
remand home since 07.12.2024. He submits that the petitioners are having no
criminal antecedent and both the petitioners are being represented through their
respective fathers and their fathers are ready to give undertaking to the effect that
petitioner(s) will not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. He
submits that false allegations are made and the trial court records have been
received, wherein the victim has stated that she has gone along with the petitioners
on her own will. He submits that the learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the
bail application only on the ground that Final Form has not been submitted and the
learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application considering that the petitioners
will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
6. Learned counsel for the State appearing in respective cases, have
opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are there against the petitioners
of taking away the girl along with them and in view of that the learned court has
rightly passed the order.
7. It appears that admittedly the petitioners are juvenile and they are
aged about 15 and 16 years the petitioners and have remained in remand home
since 07.12.2024 and they are being represented by their fathers and their fathers
are ready to give undertaking that the petitioners will not be exposed to any moral,
physical and psychological danger and they will take care of their child so that they
will not be exposed to any moral or psychological danger.
8. The learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application
-2- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &
2025:JHHC:27775
only on the ground that final form was not submitted and the learned Sessions
Judge has rejected the bail application apprehending that the petitioners will be
exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
9. It further transpires that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles was not properly
considered by the learned both the courts. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 peeking 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.
12. 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 petitioners 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.
13. The gravity of allegation has to be considered in the light of the
provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions relating to the
-3- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &
2025:JHHC:27775
juvenile and on the basis of unfounded apprehension, the bail cannot be rejected.
In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be
said that their release would defeat the ends of justice and both the 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 non-filing of the final form and exposure of the petitioners to the moral,
physical as well as psychological danger which does not sound to be good reason to
reject the bail of the petitioners.
14. As such, the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.06/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000221-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge,
Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile
Case No.02 of 2025, and order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Pakur (Town) P.S.
Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-
000003-2025 in Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025, as well as, the judgment dated
17.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.05/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000220-2025
passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S.
Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025, and the order dated
28.01.2025 passed in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile
Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025, in Cr. Revision No. 437
of 2025 are set aside and both the present criminal revision petitions are
allowed.
15. Let both the revisionist who are in observation home since
07.12.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by their natural
guardian/father, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024,
being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 [Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN
No.JHPK03-000003-2025] in Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 and Pakur (Town) P.S.
Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 [Juvenile Case No.02
of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025] in Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025,
after furnishing a personal bond of their respective father (Manoj Mandal and Jadu
Mandal) with two sureties of their relatives each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/father (in respective 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
-4- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &
2025:JHHC:27775
and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat
the offence.
(ii) Natural guardian/father (in respective cases) 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 (in respective cases) will
report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar
month commencing with the first Monday of October, 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, Pakur, 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 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.
17. Both the present revision petitions have been filed by the
revisionists through their natural guardian/father. The memo of parties
discloses the name of the juveniles. 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).
16. Both these criminal revision petitions are allowed and
disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
17. Let the trial court records be sent back to the learned court
forthwith.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
-5- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &
