2025:JHHC:37860 --1-- Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 ---- 1. Juvenile ‘X’ through his mother 2. Juvenile ‘Y’ through his father .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Lily Sahay, Advocate ---- 02/17.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Kamdara, P.S. Case No.34 of 2025 whereby the regular bail of the petitioners has been denied for the offence punishable under Section 70(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 2025:JHHC:37860 --2-- Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 the petitioners are juvenile aged about 15 years and 16 years respectively at the time of alleged occurrence. He further submits that false case has been lodged against the petitioners as nothing adverse has come in the medical report of the victim with regard to sexual assault. He then submits that petitioners are in remand home since 23.05.2025 and they have already remained in custody for about 7 months. He next submits that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.14 of the petition. He also submits that the petitioners are being represented by his mother and father respectively and they are ready to give undertaking to keep the petitioners in good behaviour and character in future and will prevent them from associating with any known criminal and from exposing them to moral, physical or psychological danger and they are ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He further submits that both the learned Courts have been pleased to reject the bail application on the ground that the petitioners will come into the contact of dreaded criminals. He submits that the regular bail may kindly be allowed to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Courts have rightly given the finding and in view of that this criminal revision petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles. On perusal of 2025:JHHC:37860 --3-- Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 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. 6. 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 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. 7. The Juvenile Justice Act is based on belief that children are the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society. At the same time if the peeking of the child in custody is helpful in his development and 2025:JHHC:37860 --4-- Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 rehabilitation or protection, only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice. 8. In view of above discussions, the Court is satisfied 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 and there is likelihood of moral, physical and psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail not founded on reasonable grounds. 9. The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and mandatory provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act as well as other provisions relating to the juvenile has declined to grant bail to the juvenile on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any materials or evidences of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and the learned Court has 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 heinousness of the offence. Thus, the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2025 and order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Kamdara, P.S. Case No.34 of 2025 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are hereby set aside and the present criminal 2025:JHHC:37860 --5-- Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 revision is allowed. 10. Let the revisionists who are in observation home since 23.05.2025 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by their natural guardian/mother and father, in connection with Kamdara, P.S. Case No.34 of 2025 registered under Section 70(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla after furnishing a personal bond on mother of petitioner No.1 (Chandu Mundain) and father of petitioner No.2 (Bhosa Barla) with two sureties of their relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardians/mother and father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionists 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 mother and father will ensure that the juveniles will not repeat the offence. (ii) Natural guardians/mother and father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juveniles will pursue their study at the appropriate level which they would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste their time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits. (iii) Juveniles and natural guardians/mother and father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of January, 2026, 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 2025:JHHC:37860 --6-- Criminal Revision No. 1169 of 2025 activities of the juveniles and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 11. Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out that the identity of the juveniles in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juveniles and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed. 12. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists through their natural guardian/mother and father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juveniles. 13. The Registry is directed to conceal the name of the juveniles from the cause list as well as the record of this case, so that the names and identities are not disclosed as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal (supra). 14. This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 17.12.2025 Sangam/