( 2025:JHHC:24497 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 443 of 2025 Juvenile ‘X’ through his father ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. For the Informant :Mr. Abhinav Raj, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ 08/ 20.08.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father has sworn affidavit and he is representing the petitioner. 3. It transpires that petitioner has not been represented through his father. 4. In view of that the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make out necessary correction in course of day. 5. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025 whereby the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur in connection with Pakur(Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2024 corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 01/2025 registered under sections 115/126(2)/74/76/96/352/62 of BNS, 2023 and Section 8, 12 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at Pakur. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 16 years and he has been implicated due to village politics. He submits that false allegations are made of attempt of rape. He submits that chargesheet has been submitted and even medical examination of the victim has not been done. He then submits that the father is ready to give undertaking that he will take care of the child and he will not allow the child to expose to any moral, physical, or psychological danger. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be released on bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that victim has supported the case of prosecution. 8. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that serious allegation is there in view of that petitioner may not be released. 9. It appears that petitioner is aged about 16 years and being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking that he will take care of the child and he will not allow the child to expose to any moral, physical, or psychological ( 2025:JHHC:24497 ) 2 danger 10. In the light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, 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. 11. 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. 12. The Court finds that both the Courts have rejected the bail on the ground of gravity of offence. 13. In view of above discussions, the Court finds that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board is that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals if released on bail not founded on reasonable grounds. 14. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on gravity of offence. Thus, the judgment dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025 and the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur in connection with Pakur(Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2024 corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 01/2025 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed. 15. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 04.01.2025 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in Pakur(Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2024 corresponding to Juvenile Case No. 01/2025, registered under sections 115/126(2)/74/76/96/352/62 of BNS, 2023 and Section 8, 12 of POCSO Act after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Eliyas SK.) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to ( 2025:JHHC:24497 ) 3 the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits. (iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of September, 2025, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day. (iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 16. This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-