IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1222 of 2025 ----

Juvenile ‘X’ through his sister .... Petitioner -- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ----

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

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Lily Sahay, Advocate ----

05/16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred challenging the legality propriety and correctness of the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2025 by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti whereby the appeal preferred under Section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with Khunti (M) P.S. Case No.10 of 2024 was dismissed and affirmed the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti in connection with Khunti (M) P.S. Case No.10 of 2024 registered under Section 376(DA), 323, 341, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act whereby the bail of the present juvenile was rejected under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khunti.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the main allegation is there against Rajesh Manjhi and the petitioner was only accomplice of the crime and that allegation is not against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was juvenile aged about 17 years at the time of alleged crime. He then submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 16.11.2024 and in view of he has already remained in custody for about one year and three months. He next submits that even the trial has not started as yet. He also submits that the father of the petitioner has left for his heavenly abode and the petitioner is being represented through his sister and she 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 she is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was the accomplice of Rajesh Manjhi in the said crime.

5. Petitioner is in remand home since 16.11.2024 and in view of he has already remained in custody for about one year and three months. Trial has not started as yet and if the petitioner will be convicted he will be convicted in light of Section 18 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for three years.

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 appear 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. In light of 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 with r