[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile 'X' Represented Through His ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2026:JHHC:4311]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1182 of 2025
Juvenile 'X' represented through his mother
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
------
06/ 16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside
judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Pakur, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2024 whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also for quashing of
order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Pakur, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 42 of 2023
corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 10 of 2024, registered for the
offence under sections 376, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 14 years at the time of
alleged occurrence. He next submits that the petitioner and the victim
are in talking terms and they are started living together in the house of
the informant. He then submits that when the marriage was not
solemnized, in view of that the case has been registered and even the
heinous sections are also added. He further submits that the occurrence
was alleged to be occurred in the year 2020, wherein the FIR has been
registered on 09.11.2023 i.e. after three years. He submits that the
[2026:JHHC:4311]
petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2024 and now he has
completed about one year and ten months in the remand home. He also
submits that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court
has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner only on
the ground that he will be exposed to moral, physical and psychological
danger. He then submits that the petitioner is being represented by his
mother and his mother is ready to give any undertaking and she will
take care of the child and she will not allow him to accompany any
known criminal and she will not allow him to expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger and she is also ready to swear an
affidavit in this regard. On these grounds, he submits that regular bail
may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the
prayer and submits that after establishing relationship with the victim,
the petitioner has refused to marry with her.
5. In the FIR itself, it has been admitted that the victim and the
petitioner were residing together and after a considerable period of
time, the FIR has been registered and further at the time of alleged
occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 14 years and he is in remand
home since 25.04.2024 and now he has completed about one year and
ten months in the remand home and further his mother is representing
this petitioner and mother is ready to take care of the petitioner and she
will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and she will not
allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger
and she is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard.
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 the juvenile can be denied
[2026:JHHC:4311]
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.
7. 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. Section
12 of the Act is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without
any discrimination of any nature.
8. 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.
9. 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 bail not founded on reasonable grounds.
10. 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
[2026:JHHC:4311]
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. The findings
recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are
based on heinousness of the offence.
11. Thus, the judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2024
and the order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice
Board, Pakur, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 42 of 2023
corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 10 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.
11. Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since
25.04.2024, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his
natural guardian / mother, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 42
of 2023, after furnishing personal bond of his mother (Chhami
Marandi) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/mother 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 mother will ensure
that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) Natural guardian/mother will further furnish an
undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his
[2026:JHHC:4311]
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/mother 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, Pakur, on such a periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
12. With the above observation, this criminal revision is
allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-16.02.2026
Amitesh/-
