IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1131 of 2025 Juvenile ‘X’ through his father …. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opp. Party --------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------

For the Petitioner : Ms. Anshu Kumari, Advocate.

Mr. Shashi Kant Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Sharda Kumari, AC to PP ------

2/09.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside Judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Special Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2025, which has been dismissed and the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No.15 of 2025, corresponding to Juvenile Case No.15 of 2025 has been affirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2025 and the name of the petitioner has come only on suspicion.

4. She next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking 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. She next submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the two of the co-accused, who are adult, have been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No.6665 of 2025. She further submits that the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner only on gravity of charge.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioner has come on suspicion and he is named in the FIR and there is chance that the petitioner will be exposed with the criminals if released on bail and in view of, he submits that the learned Courts have rightly passed the orders.

6. 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.

7. From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juveniles 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.

8. 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 helpful in his development and