IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1064 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. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.

03/ 09.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Simdega in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2025 whereby the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega in connection with Bano P.S. Case No. 24/2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 198/2025 registered under section 103(1) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged about 15 years and 4 months at the time of alleged crime and filed the present revision application through his father. He submits that the father is ready to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and prevent him from associating with any known criminals and he will not allow the child to expose to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and in this regard he is ready to swear affidavit. He submits that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and petitioner is in Remand Home since 09.04.2025. He submits that the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegation is there that on pointing out by the petitioner one wooden baton used in crime recovered and in view of that the petitioner may not be released on bail.

5. In view of above facts, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is juvenile and he is in Remand Home since 09.04.2025. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner is being represented by his father and he is giving undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and prevent him from associating with any known criminals and he will not allow the child to expose to any moral, physical, or psychological danger. .

6. It appears that both the courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that there is chance that the petitioner will come in the contact with dreaded criminals.

7. In view of above discussions, the Court finds that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board is not founded on reasonable grounds in the light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protect of Children) Act, 2015 even the social investigation report is not favourable which is required to be considered in the light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protect of Children) Act, 2015.

8. 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.

9. 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