Juvenile ‘X’ through his father … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
2025:JHHC:36878 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1131 of 2025 Juvenile ‘X’ through his father …. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner ------ : Ms. Anshu Kumari, Advocate. Mr. Shashi Kant Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Sharda Kumari, AC to PP 2/09.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for ------ the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside Judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Special Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2025, which has been dismissed and the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.15 of 2025, corresponding to Juvenile Case No.15 of 2025 has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2025 and the name of the petitioner has come only on suspicion. 4. She next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking to keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and will prevent him from associating with any known criminal and from exposing 1 2025:JHHC:36878 him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. She next submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the two of the co-accused, who are adult, have been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.6665 of 2025. She further submits that the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner only on gravity of charge. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioner has come on suspicion and he is named in the FIR and there is chance that the petitioner will be exposed with the criminals if released on bail and in view of, he submits that the learned Courts have rightly passed the orders. 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 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 2 2025:JHHC:36878 seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juveniles 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. 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 peeking 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 3 2025:JHHC:36878 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. 11. In view of the above and the two of the co-accused, who are adult, have been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.6665 of 2025, the Judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Special Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2025 and the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.15 of 2025, corresponding to Juvenile Case No.15 of 2025 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are 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/father, in Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.15 of 2025, corresponding to Juvenile Case No.15 of 2025 after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Sikander Ekka) 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/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any 4 2025:JHHC:36878 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 January 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. 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 be disclosed. 12. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name 5 2025:JHHC:36878 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.
Decision
Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. 09.12.2025 Uploaded on 15.12.2025 R.Kumar (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 6