IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1124 of 2025 Juvenile ‘X’ through his mother ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party --------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. R.N. Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.

------

05/ 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 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist -cum-Special Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No. 210/2025 whereby the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 104/2025 registered under sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS, pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged about 14 years at the time of alleged crime and filed the present revision application through his mother. He submits that the mother is ready to give undertaking that she will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and prevent him from associating with any known criminals and she will not allow the child to expose to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and in this regard she is ready to swear affidavit. He further submits that petitioner is in Remand Home since 08.05.2025. He submits that the petitioner is not named in F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused and in view of that petitioner may kindly be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the case is registered under section 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 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 08.05.2025. The petitioner is being represented by her mother and she is giving undertaking that she will take care of the child.

6. It appears that both the courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of offence.

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.

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 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 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 keeking of the child in custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.

10. In the absen