IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1220 of 2025 Juvenile ‘X’ represented through his father ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party --------

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.

------

02/ 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 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also for quashing of order dated 07.10.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025 corresponding to E.N. No. 222 of 2025, registered for the offence under section 64(2)(i) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged occurrence and allegations are made of establishing the physical relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. He next submits that the petitioner and the victim were in relationship since last two years, wherein the FIR has only been registered on 01.06.2025. He then submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 01.06.2025. He further submits that in the social investigation report, it has come that due to love affair, the case has been lodged. 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 father and his father is ready to give any undertaking and he will take care of the child and he will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and he will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he 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 the allegations are there of establishing physical relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage.

5. Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the victim and the petitioner were in relationship since last two years, wherein the FIR has only been registered on 01.06.2025 and further at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and he is in remand home since 01.06.2025 and further his father is representing this petitioner and he is ready to take care of the petitioner and he will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and he will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he 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 wit