SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Juvenile ‘X’ (Through His Natural Guardian/Father) - Petitioner
Versus 
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent 
Cr. Revision No. 605 of 2025
Decided On : 16-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Rakesh, Advocate

Bail to juveniles under JJ Act Section 12 is rule; denial only on three specific grounds, not offence seriousness or age, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 - Bail to juvenile is rule and refusal exception only on three grounds: (i) release likely to bring into association with known criminal, (ii) expose to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) defeat ends of justice - Seriousness of alleged offence or juvenile's age above 16 years irrelevant even for heinous offences - Provision overrides CrPC or other laws - Lower courts erred in denying bail based solely on apprehension of association with anti-social elements without reasonable grounds and heinousness of offence. (Paras 5,6,8,9)

(B) Juvenile's right to privacy - Identity not to be disclosed in judgments or records - Registry directed to conceal name from cause list and records. (Paras 11,12)

Facts of the case:
Criminal revision against dismissal of appeal affirming Juvenile Justice Board's rejection of bail in case under murder and rape provisions of IPC and POCSO Act - Petitioner falsely implicated, name from confessional statement, aged about 16 years at occurrence, in custody for 19 months, social report not adverse, father ready with undertakings against criminal association and for studies.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders set aside - Juvenile released on bail on father's personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions: undertakings for no criminal contact/exposure to danger/no repetition of offence, pursuit of studies, monthly reporting to Probation Officer, Probation Officer to submit periodic social reports.

Issues: Whether bail denial justified under Section 12 on grounds of association with anti-social elements; propriety of relying on offence gravity over statutory bail criteria.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must strictly adhere to Section 12 grounds for bail refusal; punitive approach self-destructive - Juveniles to be reformed/rehabilitated; unfounded apprehensions and heinousness insufficient for denial absent material on three contingencies.

Result: Criminal revision allowed.

Table of Content
1. revision challenges juvenile bail rejection orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner claims false implication, long custody. (Para 3)
3. state cites confession, serious ipc offences. (Para 4)
4. bail is rule under jj act section 12. (Para 5 , 6)
5. juveniles need reform, not punishment. (Para 7)
6. bail denial invalid sans statutory grounds. (Para 8 , 9)
7. bail granted with guardian undertakings. (Para 10)
8. protect juvenile identity per supreme court. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

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 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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top