[2025:JHHC:25342] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1224 of 2024 1. Ritesh Oraon, aged about 17 years, Son of Bihari Oraon, through his Father Bihari Oraon, son of Mado Oraon, 2. Bikas Oraon, aged about 17 years, Son of Late Jagu Oraon, through his Mother Karmee Oraon, wife of Late Jagu Oraon. All are Residents of Nigni Gangupara, P.O. Lohardaga, P.S. Lohardaga, District - Lohardaga. ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Victim ‘x’ through her father ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shubhneet Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the victim : Mr. Ziaul Haque, Advocate. ------ 08/ 26.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 victim. 2. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2024, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga, in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 284 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 342, 363, 366(A) and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioners has been rejected and further prayer is made for setting aside the judgment dated 10.09.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Lohardaga, whereby the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga has been confirmed by the learned appellate court. [2025:JHHC:25342] -2- 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1 is being represented by his father and petitioner No. 2 is being represented by his mother. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 both were aged about 17 years and odd on the alleged date of occurrence. He further submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that these petitioners have tried to rescue her and she has taken the name of other persons. He then submits that in identical situation, the other two juveniles have already been granted bail in Cr. Rev. Nos. 511 and 513 of 2025 respectively. He submits that the petitioners are in observation home since 25.02.2024 and the father and mother of these petitioners are ready to give any undertaking and they will take care of their child and they will not allow them to accompany any known criminal and they will not allow them to expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger and they are also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He submits that the learned trial court has rejected the bail application only on the ground of gravity of the offence and identical is the situation in rejecting the appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court has rejected the same seeing the gravity of the crime, however, he submits that the petitioners are the juvenile. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the victim submits that these petitioners have got no role and they have tried to rescue the victim and this has been stated by the victim herself in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above, it transpires that the petitioners are juvenile and their father and mother respectively are representing these petitioners and both of them are ready to take care of the petitioners and further two of the other juveniles have already been granted bail in the [2025:JHHC:25342] -3- aforementioned Criminal revisions. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. The learned trial court and the learned appellate court both have rejected the prayer for bail only on the ground considering the gravity of offence. The court finds that the said reasoning does not sound good. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.08.2024, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga, in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 284 of 2024, and the judgment dated 10.09.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children Court), Lohardaga, are hereby, set aside. 11. Let the revisionists, who are in observation home since 25.02.2024, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by their natural guardians i.e. father and mother respectively, in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 284 of 2024 [2025:JHHC:25342] -4- after furnishing personal bond of their father and mother respectively with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga. 12. With the above observation, this criminal revision is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-