( 2025:JHHC:36884 ) -1- Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2025 Juvenile “X” represented through his father … Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. ----- 04/09.12.2025 Heard Mr. Shahid Yunus, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.387/2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.30/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar, whereby, the said misc. criminal application filed by the petitioner for bail against the judgment and sentence dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar in Juvenile Case No. (E.R. No.)11/2024 in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.12/2024 for the offences under Section 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act has been rejected, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar has been pleased to convict the petitioner under Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and the petitioner has been sent to Special Home, Dhanbad for three years. He further submits that the petitioner has preferred Misc. Criminal Application No.387 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2025 against the said judgment and during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the learned appellate court has been pleased to dispose of the said misc. ( 2025:JHHC:36884 ) -2- Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2025 criminal application and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the act of the petitioner is very heinous. He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 15.04.2024 i.e. for about one year and 7 months. He then submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. He next submits that the father is also ready to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and will prevent him from associating with any known criminal and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that heinous allegation is there against the petitioner and if the petitioner will be released, there is every likelihood that again he will be associated with the criminals. 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 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. 6. From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of ( 2025:JHHC:36884 ) -3- Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2025 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. 7. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 376 DA of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and he has been sent to Special Home, Dhanbad for three years, however, the petitioner is in remand home since 15.04.2024 i.e. for about one year and seven months and the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending. 8. In view of above discussions and considering the period of custody, the Court is satisfied that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board to the effect 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, is not founded on reasonable grounds. 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 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 ( 2025:JHHC:36884 ) -4- Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2025 order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No.387/2025 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.30/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Latehar in connection with Bariyatu P.S. Case No.12/2024 is, hereby, set-aside. 10. Let the revisionist who is in remand home since 15.04.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024, Juvenile Case No. (E.R. No.) 11 of 2024, after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Md. Kadir Ansari @ Mohd. Kadir) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Latehar, 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 ( 2025:JHHC:36884 ) -5- Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2025 following working day; and (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, Latehar, 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 Supreme Court in 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 revisionist through his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile. The Registry is directed to conceal the names 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 the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal (supra). 13. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 9th December, 2025 Ajay/ Uploaded on 10/12/2025