[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile 'X' (Through His Natural ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:4294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr. Revision No. 605 of 2025
----
Juvenile 'X' (through his natural guardian/father)....Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Mrs. A (Mother of the deceased), Sahibganj................Opp. Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate
Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
----
3/16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside
judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024
whereby the learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to dismiss the
said appeal affirming judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by learned
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in Barharwa P.S.
Case No No.86 of 2024, registered under section 302/376 of IPC and
section 4/6 of POCSO Act, whereby the bail petition of the petitioner
was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the name of the
petitioner has come on confessional statement and the petitioner was
aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He also submits
-1- Cr. Revision No.605 of 2025
2026:JHHC:4294
that the petitioner has been arrested on 21.6.2024 and since then, he
is in Ramand Home and he is in custody for almost 19 months. He
further submits that on the point of conduct of the petitioner, the social
report is not against him, however, the learned court has been pleased
to reject the bail petition filed by the petitioner. He next submits that
the petitioner is being represented by his father and he is ready to give
undertaking that the petitioner will not be allowed to be associated with
any known criminal and the petitioner will also not be exposed to
moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready to swear an
affidavit in this regard. He next submits that both the learned court
have rejected the bail petition of the petitioner only on the ground that
the petitioner will come in association with the anti-social elements, if
the bail is granted.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the name of the
petitioner has come on confessional statement and he is facing the
case under section 302 and section 376 of the IPC, and in view of that,
the learned courts have rightly passed the order.
5. 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 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
-2- Cr. Revision No.605 of 2025
2026:JHHC:4294
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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
-3- Cr. Revision No.605 of 2025
2026:JHHC:4294
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 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 heinousness of the offence. Thus, the
judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024
whereby the learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to dismiss the
said appeal affirming the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in
Barharwa P.S. Case No No.86 of 2024 are not sustainable in the eye of
law and hence both the orders are set-aside and the present criminal
revision is allowed.
10. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since
21.06.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his
natural guardian/father, in Barharwa P.S. Case No.86 of 2024, after
furnishing a personal bond of his father (Nibaran Bagti) with two
sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj, 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
-4- Cr. Revision No.605 of 2025
2026:JHHC:4294
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 March, 2026, 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, Sahebganj, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice
Board may determine.
11. 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
-5- Cr. Revision No.605 of 2025
2026:JHHC:4294
be disclosed.
12. 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).
13 This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.
Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 16.02.2026
SI/
-6- Cr. Revision No.605 of 2025
