IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ------

Cr. Revision No. 1102 of 2024 ------

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. Sahil, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

------

8/09.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 05.07.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge- I, Khunti in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2024 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal and has affirmed the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with Khunti (Mahila) P.S. Case No.31 of 2023, arising out of POCSO Case No.01 of 2024, registered under sections 377 of the IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he is in remand home since 20.12.2023 and the petitioner is being represented through his father. He next submits that the father of the petitioner is ready to undertakes 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 further submits that if the petitioner will be convicted, he will be convicted for three years and he has already remained in custody for almost two years. He then submits that now the charge has been framed and witnesses are being examined. He then submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the allegations are there under section 377 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and in view of that the learned court has rejected the application for regular bail of the petitioner apprehending that if the petitioner will be released, the petitioner will be exposed to moral, psychological and physical danger.

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 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 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.

7. 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 and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society. At the same time if the peeking of the child in custody is hel