( 2025:JHHC:31187 ) -1- Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2025 Juvenile “X” represented through his mother … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashikant Ojha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ----- 05/09.10.2025 Heard Mr. Shashikant Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this criminal revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I cum Spl. Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, whereby, the Cr. Misc. Appeal No.12/2025 has been dismissed affirming the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Gumla corresponding to MCA No.405/2025 arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.11/2025, G.R. Case No.64/2025, registered under Sections 96 and 70(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected, pending in the Court of the learned J.J. Board, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was aged about 17 years and 11 months at the time of the alleged occurrence. He then submits that the petitioner was taken into custody on 19.02.2025. He next submits that the name of the petitioner has come on the confessional statement of the co-accused. He also submits that the trial has been started and in the trial, the informant and victim have deposed to the ( 2025:JHHC:31187 ) -2- Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2025 effect that nothing has been happened with the victim. To buttress this argument, he produced deposition of the victim and informant, who have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. The said depositions have been taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner is being represented through his mother and the mother is ready to give undertaking that she will take care of the child and he will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. He then submits that the learned J.J. Board, Gumla has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and he may come in association with the known criminal. He also submits that the learned appellate court has also dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the same premises. On these grounds, he submits that the bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that both the learned Courts have apprehended that the petitioner will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and in view of that, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected. However, the learned counsel for the State is not disputing the depositions of the victim and informant respectively. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was aged about 17 years and 11 months at the time of alleged occurrence and he is in custody since 19.02.2025. The petitioner is being represented by his mother and the mother is ready to give undertaking that she will take care of the child and he will not repeat the offence and he will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. ( 2025:JHHC:31187 ) -3- Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2025 6. The learned J.J. Board and the appellate court have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground that there is likelihood that the petitioner may be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. 7. For rejecting the bail, three ingredients in light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are required to be considered, deals for bail to juveniles, i.e. (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 is 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. The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and the mandatory provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 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 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 ( 2025:JHHC:31187 ) -4- Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2025 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 crime. Further, the victim and informant have not supported the case. 10. In view of the above facts, the judgment dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I cum Spl. Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla in Cr. Misc. Appeal No.12/2025 and the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned J.J. Board, Gumla corresponding to MCA No.405/2025 arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.11/2025, G.R. Case No.64/2025 are, hereby, set-aside. 11. Since the revisionist is in observation home since 19.02.2025, he is directed to be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother in connection with Palkot P.S. Case No.11/2025, corresponding to MCA No.405/2025, G.R. Case No.64/2025, after furnishing a personal bond of his mother with two sureties of her relative each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla subject to the following conditions: - (i) Natural guardian/mother 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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) Natural guardian/mother will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the ( 2025:JHHC:31187 ) -5- Criminal Revision No. 788 of 2025 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/mother will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of November, 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, Gumla on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 12. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 9th October, 2025 Ajay/