IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ------

Cr. Revision No. 357 of 2025 ------

Juvenile ‘X’ through his father ...... … Petitioner --Versus--

The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.

------

5/09.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Godda, in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2025 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal and has affirmed the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.154 of 2024, arising out of Enquiry No.185 of 2024 in M.C.A. No.124 of 2025, registered under sections 309(4) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in remand since 31.12.2024 and was aged about 18 years at the time of alleged crime and the petitioner is being represented through his father. He next submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He also submits that the father of the petitioner is ready to undertakes to 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 next submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of the bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of charge and on apprehension that if the petitioner will be released, he will be exposed to physical, moral and psychological danger and come in association of the dreaded criminals. He further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the petitioner has remained in custody for 11 months and if the petitioner will be convicted, maximum sentence would be imposed of three years.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the learned courts have rightly passed the orders and there is every likelihood that if the petitioner will be released, he will come in association of dreaded criminals and she also submits that the seized arm was found to be in working condition.

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 circ