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. Shahid Yunus, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

-----

04/09.12.2025 Heard Mr. Shahid Yunus, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.387/2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.30/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, whereby, the said misc. criminal application filed by the petitioner for bail against the judgment and sentence dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar in Juvenile Case No. (E.R. No.)11/2024 in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.12/2024 for the offences under Section 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act has been rejected, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and the petitioner has been sent to Special Home, Dhanbad for three years. He further submits that the petitioner has preferred Misc. Criminal Application No.387 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2025 against the said judgment and during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the learned appellate court has been pleased to dispose of the said misc.

criminal application and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the act of the petitioner is very heinous. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 15.04.2024 i.e. for about one year and 7 months. He then 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 withou