2025:JHHC:26719 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No.1135 of 2024 Juvenile ‘X’ through his father …. … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, APP For the Informant : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ 15/01.09.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the Judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner in light of Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 02.07.2024 has been rejected and uphold the said order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection with MGM P.S. Case No.102 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.409 of 2022 (S.T. No.118 of 2022). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of alleged crime, the petitioner was aged about 17 years 05 months and 08 days and the petitioner is declared juvenile. He further submits that the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that the co-accused, 2025:JHHC:26719 2 on whom, the allegation was made; the vehicle of that accused was used in the crime, who has faced the trial and he has been acquitted by the learned Court by the Judgment dated 05.02.2025. He submits that the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail application only on the ground that the father is not doing any work. He further submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and father is ready to give any undertaking that he will take care of the child and he will not allow him to expose to any moral, physical and physiological danger. He submits that the petitioner is in remand home for about four years since 25.11.2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the mobile phone of the deceased has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that earlier the regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected in B.A. No.3357 of 2023 by order dated 19.07.2023. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that on the confession of the petitioner, the skeleton was recovered. 6. It is an admitted position that at the time of alleged crime, the petitioner was juvenile and he was declared juvenile. The co- accused, whose car was alleged to be used in crime, has been acquitted by the Judgment dated 05.02.2025. It has been pointed out that earlier the regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected, but it appears that later on the petitioner was declared juvenile and in view of that, he is in remand home since 25.11.2021. The petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give any 2025:JHHC:26719 3 undertaking to take care of petitioner and not allow him to expose to moral, physical and physiological danger. It has further been pointed out that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. 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 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 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 and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under section 12 of the Act, 2015. 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. 9. In view of the above, it transpires that the gravity of the allegation is not the ground to reject the bail of a Juvenile in the light 2025:JHHC:26719 4 of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail of the petitioner only on the ground that the father of the petitioner is not working, however, it has been pointed out that the father is working and he is ready to give any undertaking to take care of his child and he is in remand home since 25.11.2021. 10. It appears that the ground of rejection is not considered as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in right perspective and in view of that the Judgment dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2024 and the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur in connection with MGM P.S. Case No.102 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.409 of 2022 (S.T. No.118 of 2022) are hereby set-aside. 11. In view of that, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 12. Since the revisionist is in observation home since 25.11.2021, he is directed to be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father in connection with MGM P.S. Case No.102 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. Case No.409 of 2022 (S.T. No.118 of 2022), after furnishing a personal bond of his father with two sureties of his relative each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Jamshedpur, subject to the following conditions: - 2025:JHHC:26719 5 (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 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 third Monday of every calendar month commencing with the third Monday of September, 2025, and if during any calendar month the third 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, Jamshedpur, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 13. As such, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. Pending I.A. if any stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) R.Kumar