[2025:JHHC:33005] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1012 of 2025 Chandan Machua, aged about 16 Years, son of Shivnath Machua represented through his mother and natural guardian Arti Machhuwain, resident of Jojohatu, Dalbhanga, Post Kuchai, Police Station Kuchai, District Seraikella-Kharsawan. ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. ------ 03/ 04.11.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, in connection with POCSO Case No. 15 of 2025 arising out of Kuchai (Dalbhbaga O.P.) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 96/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected and further prayer is made for setting aside the judgment dated 04.08.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella, whereby the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella has been confirmed by the learned appellate court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 10.04.2025. He then submits that the co-accused, who is father of [2025:JHHC:33005] -2- the petitioner has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 8201 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court. He next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his mother and she is ready to give any undertaking and she will take care of the child and she will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and she will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He then submits that both the learned courts have been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner considering the gravity of crime. He also submits that both the learned courts have not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in its right perspective. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be allowed the regular bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are heinous, as such, the petitioner is required to remain in remand home and both the learned Courts have rightly passed the order. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a juvenile and aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime and he is in remand home since 10.04.2025 and he is being represented by his mother and further her mother is ready to take care of the child and the co-accused, who is the father of this petitioner has already been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 8201 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench. 6. 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 [2025:JHHC:33005] -3- moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. Section 12 of the said Act further stipulates 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. 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. 8. It appears that both the learned courts have been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner considering the seriousness of the alleged crime and 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 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 judgment dated 21.05.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, in connection with POCSO Case No. [2025:JHHC:33005] -4- 15 of 2025 arising out of Kuchai (Dalbhbaga O.P.) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025 as well as the judgment dated 04.08.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella, are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed. 9. Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since 10.04.2025, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian / mother, in connection with POCSO Case No. 15 of 2025 arising out of Kuchai (Dalbhbaga O.P.) P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025 after furnishing personal bond on his mother (Arti Machhuwain) with two sureties of her relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, 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 father 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 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 December, 2025, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, [2025:JHHC:33005] -5- 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, Seraikella, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 10. With the above observation, this criminal revision is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-04.11.2025 Amitesh/-