IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1020 of 2024 Juvenile ‘X’ through his mother …. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ..... … Opp. Parties --------

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate.

For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, APP ------

7/09.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside the Judgment dated 17.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Children’s Court, Hazaribagh passed in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No.82 of 2023, whereby the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No.246 of 2023, registered for the offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC, whereby the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected, pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hazaribagh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged about 17 years 01 months at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in observation home since 14.08.2023, i.e., about two years and four months. He also submits that even if the petitioner will be convicted then he will be sentenced for three years and the trial is not concluded as yet.

4. He next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his mother and the mother 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 him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He next submits that the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner only on gravity of charge and there is likelihood to expose the petitioner to moral, physical and psychological danger. He also submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, the petitioner’s name has come in course of investigation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits 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 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 an