IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1216 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 : Ms. Sonal Pandey, Advocate.

For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.

------

05/ 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 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Latehar, in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 20.06.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar, in connection with Mahuadanr P.S. Case No. 15 of 2025 corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 15 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has been affirmed, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Latehar.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 15 years, six months and 14 days at the time of alleged occurrence. She next submits that there are general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner of assault and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and the main accused has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 6665 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court. She further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2025. She 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, she 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 the name of the petitioner has come on the basis of suspicion.

5. It transpires that the petitioner was aged about 15 years, six months and 14 days at the time of alleged occurrence and further the main accused has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 6665 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court and further the petitioner is in remand home since 25.04.2025 and 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 age of the juvenile are also no relevant consideration for denial of bail above 16 years of age. 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- destructiv