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

Cr. Revision No. 605 of 2025 ----

Juvenile ‘X’ (through his natural guardian/father)….Petitioner(s)

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Mrs. A (Mother of the deceased), Sahibganj…………….Opp. Parties ----

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

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate ----

3/16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal affirming judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in Barharwa P.S. Case No No.86 of 2024, registered under section 302/376 of IPC and section 4/6 of POCSO Act, whereby the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the name of the petitioner has come on confessional statement and the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He also submits that the petitioner has been arrested on 21.6.2024 and since then, he is in Ramand Home and he is in custody for almost 19 months. He further submits that on the point of conduct of the petitioner, the social report is not against him, however, the learned court has been pleased to reject the bail petition filed by the petitioner. He next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and he is ready to give undertaking that the petitioner will not be allowed to be associated with any known criminal and the petitioner will also not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He next submits that both the learned court have rejected the bail petition of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner will come in association with the anti-social elements, if the bail is granted.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the name of the petitioner has come on confessional statement and he is facing the case under section 302 and section 376 of the IPC, and in view of that, the learned courts have rightly passed the order.

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 i