IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Juvenile “X” represented through his father … Petitioner -Versus-

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

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State : Ms. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.

-----

02/09.12.2025 Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mohua Palit, learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Criminal Misc. Appeal No.89 of 2024, whereby, the learned appellate court has been pleased to reject the prayer to release the petitioner-juvenile on bail and has been pleased to affirm the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Giridih in connection with Pachamba P.S. Case No.50 of 2024, arising out of Children Case No.14 of 2024, registered under Sections 366(A)/376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, whereby, the prayer for bail of the juvenile has been rejected and the case is pending in the Court of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 16 years at the time of the alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 15.04.2024. He then submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He also submits that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. He next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. He next submits that the father is also 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 he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that heinous allegation is there against the petitioner and if the petitioner will be released, there is every likelihood that again he will be associated with the criminals.

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 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 is 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. 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 to the effect 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.

8. Th