2025:JHHC:37928 --1-- Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 ---- Juvenile ‘X’ through his father .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ---- 02/17.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred the bail application before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with Special POCSO Case No.113/2025 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.194 of 2025 dated 13.07.2025 and the learned Court has been pleased to reject the bail application by order dated 17.11.2025. He next submits that the petitioner has preferred appeal against the said order being Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2025 which has been rejected by the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad by the order dated 29.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is juvenile aged about more than 17 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has been 2025:JHHC:37928 --2-- Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 arrested on 12.07.2025 and since then he is in remand home. He then submits that in order of learned Sessions Judge Social Investigation Report has been considered wherein it has been stated that there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. He next submits that in the medical report also there is no sign of sexual assault. He also submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is being represented by his father and he is ready to give undertaking to keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and will prevent him from associating with any known criminal and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is 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 petitioner will be exposed to dreaded criminal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the apprehension of the learned Courts are correct and in view of that the bail of the petitioner may kindly be rejected. 5. 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 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 2025:JHHC:37928 --3-- Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 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 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 2025:JHHC:37928 --4-- Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board 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. Learned courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground that there is likelihood that the petitioner will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Thus, the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Children’s Court, Dhanbad, in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2025 and order dated 13.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with Special POCSO Case No.113 of 2025 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.194 of 2025 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are hereby set aside and the preset criminal revision is allowed. 10. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 12.07.2025 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in connection with Special POCSO Case No.113/2025 arising out of Jharia P.S. Case No.194 of 2025 registered under Section 62(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad after furnishing a personal 2025:JHHC:37928 --5-- Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 bond on his father (Mantosh Kumbhakar @ Mantu Kumhar) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad subject to the following conditions: (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 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 activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, 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 juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa 2025:JHHC:37928 --6-- Criminal Revision No. 1196 of 2025 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 revisionist through his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile. 13. The Registry is directed to conceal the name of the juvenile 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/