[Cites 4, 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:4396]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1216 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 : Ms. Sonal Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
------
05/ 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 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar, in Criminal
Appeal No. 66 of 2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
has been dismissed and the order dated 20.06.2025, passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar, in connection with Mahuadanr
P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025 corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 15 of
2025, registered for the offence under Section 103(1) and 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been affirmed, pending in the Court
of learned S.D.J.M., Latehar.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 15 years, six months
and 14 days at the time of alleged occurrence. She next submits that
there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner of
assault and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and the main
accused has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 6665 of 2025
by the co-ordinate bench of this court. She further submits that the
petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2025. She then submits that
the petitioner is being represented by his mother and his mother is
[2026:JHHC:4396]
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, she 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 the name of the petitioner has come on the basis
of suspicion.
5. It transpires that the petitioner was aged about 15 years, six
months and 14 days at the time of alleged occurrence and further the
main accused has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 6665 of
2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court and further the petitioner is
in remand home since 25.04.2025 and 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
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
[2026:JHHC:4396]
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
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 10.10.2025 passed by the learned
[2026:JHHC:4396]
Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court,
Latehar, in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2025 whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated
20.06.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar, in
connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025 corresponding to
Juvenile Case No. 15 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section
103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been affirmed,
pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Latehar, is not sustainable in
the eye of law and hence the said order is set aside and the present
criminal revision is allowed.
12. Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since
25.04.2025, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his
natural guardian / mother, in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.
15 of 2025 [Juvenile Case No. 15 of 2025], after furnishing personal
bond of his mother (Savitri Devi @ Savitri Kumari) with two sureties
of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile
Justice Board, Latehar, 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
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
[2026:JHHC:4396]
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, Latehar, on such a periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
13. With the above observation, this criminal revision is
allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated:-16.02.2026
Amitesh/-
