IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1182 of 2025 Juvenile ‘X’ represented through his mother ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party --------

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.

------

06/ 16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also for quashing of order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 42 of 2023 corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 10 of 2024, registered for the offence under sections 376, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/8 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 14 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He next submits that the petitioner and the victim are in talking terms and they are started living together in the house of the informant. He then submits that when the marriage was not solemnized, in view of that the case has been registered and even the heinous sections are also added. He further submits that the occurrence was alleged to be occurred in the year 2020, wherein the FIR has been registered on 09.11.2023 i.e. after three years. He submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2024 and now he has completed about one year and ten months in the remand home. He also submits that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner only on the ground that he will be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger. He then submits that the petitioner is being represented by his mother and his mother is ready to give any undertaking and she will take care of the child and she will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and she will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. On these grounds, he submits that regular bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that after establishing relationship with the victim, the petitioner has refused to marry with her.

5. In the FIR itself, it has been admitted that the victim and the petitioner were residing together and after a considerable period of time, the FIR has been registered and further at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 14 years and he is in remand home since 25.04.2024 and now he has completed about one year and ten months in the remand home and further his mother is representing this petitioner and mother is ready to take care of the petitioner and she will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and she will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard.

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 the 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