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

Cr. Revision No. 1124 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. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.

For the Informant : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate ------

11/09.12.2025: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for State and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 12.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum- Children Court, Deoghar in Criminal (Juvenile Bail) Appeal No. 33 of 2024 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the criminal appeal and has affirmed the order dated 21.06.2024 of rejection of bail in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.149 of 2023, registered for the offence under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court learned, Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared as a juvenile by the order dated 14.05.2024. He next submits that the petitioner was taken into custody on 30.03.2023 and he was sent to the Remand Home on 29.05.2024. He further submits that 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 then submits that the learned courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner considering the heinousness of the crime and apprehended that the petitioner will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. He next submits that if the petitioner will be convicted, he will be convicted for three years and he has already remained in custody for about two years and nine months. He also submits that now the charge has been framed and witnesses are being examined.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is likelihood of the petitioner being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and he will come into the association of the dreaded criminals and in view of that, the learned courts have rightly passed the orders.

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