Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Juvenile 'X' Through His Father vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5960 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5960 Jhar
Judgement Date : 18 September, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Juvenile 'X' Through His Father vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 18 September, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
                                                                  2025:JHHC:28849




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                       Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024
                                        ----

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. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Advocate

----

04/18.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order

dated 15.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.2808 of

2024 arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No.122 of 2024 by the learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO,

Ranchi registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, Section 6

of POCSO Act and Section 67(A) of Information Technology Act

arising out of Children Case No.07 of 2024 pending in the Court of

learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - IV-cum-Special Judge,

POCSO, Ranchi by which the bail application filed by the petitioner

has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is juvenile aged about 17 years at the time of alleged

occurrence and he is being represented by his father and he is

--1--

Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024 2025:JHHC:28849

ready to give any undertaking. He further submits that the

petitioner is in remand home since 04.06.2024. He then submits

that in the social investigation report it has come that if the

petitioner is allowed to remain in custody for longer period that may

adversely affect the petitioner and further in the social investigation

report it has come that out of love the same act has been done by

the petitioner. He next submits that in the medical report there is

nothing against the petitioner. He submits that the learned Court

has been pleased to dismiss the petition only on the ground that

there is chance of associating the petitioner with any known

criminals and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological

danger.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer

and submits that the allegations are there and the learned Court

has rightly rejected the bail application.

5. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing

for the parties, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is

juvenile aged about 17 years at the time of alleged occurrence and

he is in remand home since 04.06.2024 and it has come in the

social investigation report that if the petitioner will be allowed to

remain in custody for longer period that may adversely affect the

petitioner and the petitioner is being represented by his father and

he is ready to give any undertaking.

--2--

Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024 2025:JHHC:28849

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 appear 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. In light of 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 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. The learned Court has been pleased to reject the bail

application only on the ground that the petitioner will expose to

moral, physical or psychological danger that does not found to be

good reason.

--3--

Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024 2025:JHHC:28849

9. The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated

and mandatory provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act as

well as other provisions relating to the juvenile has declined to grant

bail to the juvenile on the basis of unfounded apprehension is not

the spirit of Juvenile Justice Act. In the absence of any materials or

evidences of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release

would defeat the ends of justice and the learned Court has failed to

give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the

revisionist.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated

15.10.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.2808 of 2024

arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No.122 of 2024 by the learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-Special Judge, POCSO,

Ranchi is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence the order is

hereby set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

11. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since

04.06.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by

his natural guardian/father, in connection with Misc. Criminal

Application No.2808 of 2024 arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No.122

of 2024, registered under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, Section

6 of POCSO Act and Section 67(A) of Information Technology Act

after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Krishna Kumar

Sharma) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to

--4--

Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024 2025:JHHC:28849

the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV-cum-

Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, 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, Ranchi, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

12. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa

Mittal v. NCT Delhi, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein it

was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.

--5--

Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024 2025:JHHC:28849

13. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through

his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name

of the juvenile.

14. 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 Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal (supra).

15. This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated 18.09.2025 Sangam/

--6--

Criminal Revision No. 1250 of 2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter