[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Juvenile "X" Represented Through His ... vs State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party on 30 January, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:2395 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2026
Juvenile "X" represented through his father ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
-----
03/30.01.2026 Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st cum
Special Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.243/2025 passed in connection
with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025, whereby, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner/juvenile has been rejected and the order dated 14.10.2025 passed
by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro passed in connection with
Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025, registered for the offence under Section 115,
126(2),117, 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 303(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, has been affirmed.
3. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. He submits that
the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence. He further
submits that the petitioner has been arrested and he is in observation home
since 18.09.2025 and he is behind the bar w.e.f. that day and he has remained
in custody for about 4 ½ months. He then submits that Social Investigation
Report was called from the Probation Officer, Bokaro, wherein, it has been
-1- Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:2395 )
reported that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and it has
been stated that proper parental guidance was not given to the petitioner. He
next submits that even the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name
of the petitioner has come on confessional statement. He also submits that
the petitioner is being represented through his father and the father is ready
to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and
character in future and will prevent him from associating with any known
criminal and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger
and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He further submits that
the petitioner is a meritorious student. He next submits that the person, who
has been named in the FIR, he has been granted regular bail by the learned
Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.12.2025 in S.T. No. 377 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and
submits that the allegations of assault are there against the petitioner and in
view of that, this criminal revision petition may kindly be dismissed.
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 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
-2- Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:2395 )
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
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, is 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
-3- Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:2395 )
of unfounded apprehension. In 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 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
1st cum Special Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.243/2025 passed in
connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025 and the order dated
14.10.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro in
connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025 are not sustainable in the eyes
of law and, as such, both the judgment and order are, hereby, set-aside and
the present criminal revision is allowed.
10. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 18.09.2025 be
released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father,
in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 83/2025 after furnishing a personal
bond on his father (Sanjay Yadav) with two sureties of his relatives each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro, 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
-4- Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:2395 )
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 second Monday of every calendar month
commencing with the second Monday of February, 2026, and if
during any calendar month the second 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, Bokaro,
on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may
determine.
11. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.
12. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 30th January, 2026
Ajay/
Uploaded on
30/01/2026
-5- Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2026
