IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2025 ----

Juvenile ‘X’ represented through natural guardian and father namely Nandlal Lohra .... Petitioner -- Versus --

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

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

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate ----

05/09.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla and order dated 02.12.2023 rejecting the bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.1847 of 2023 in connection with Spt. G.R. Case No.106 of 2023 arising out of FIR Gumla P.S. Case No.163 of 2023 registered under Sections 376DA, 376DB, 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of POCSO Act, wherein the bail of the petitioner was rejected pending in the Court of learned J.J. Board, Gumla.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was juvenile aged about 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence and the allegation against the petitioner is heinous, however, petitioner is in custody for approximately two years and four months and was taken in custody on 19.05.2023 and was declared juvenile by order dated 13.10.2023 and was sent to remand home on that day and he remained in custody for two years six months and twenty days. He refers to Section 18(1)(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. He submits that the petitioner is being represented by his natural guardian/father namely Nandlal Lohra and he is ready to give undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. He next submits that the petitioner has spent substantial time in remand home and in view of that he may kindly be granted bail. He also submits that the trial is going on. He next submits that two of the juveniles have been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Revision Nos.392 of 2025 and

1146 of 2024 by order dated 10.10.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the learned Courts have rightly appreciated the fact and has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is admitted position that the petitioner is juvenile aged about 18 years at the time of alleged occurrence and he is in remand home since 19.05.2023 and he remained in custody for two years six months and twenty days and the petitioner is being represented through natural guardian/father namely Nandlal Lohra and he is ready to give undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and both the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner considering the gravity of the crime committed by the petitioner.

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 appear 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. In light of Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the ju