2025:JHHC:37837 --1-- Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1167 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. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate ---- 02/17.12.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No.34 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 petitioner and affirmed the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Gumla, P.S. Case No.123 of 2025 whereby the regular bail of the petitioner has been denied for the offence punishable under Section 70(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6/10 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2025:JHHC:37837 --2-- Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2025 petitioner is juvenile aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has been taken into custody on 23.04.2025 and since then he is in remand home and petitioner has already remained in custody for about 8 months. He then submits that the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.14 of the petition and even there is nothing adverse against the petitioner in the medical report of the victim. He next submits that false case is lodged against the petitioner of rape. He also submits that 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. He submits that the regular bail may kindly be allowed to the petitioner. 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 2025:JHHC:37837 --3-- Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2025 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 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 2025:JHHC:37837 --4-- Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2025 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 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 11.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2025 and order dated 04.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, 2025:JHHC:37837 --5-- Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2025 Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in connection with Gumla, P.S. Case No.123 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 23.04.2025 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.123 of 2025 registered under Section 70(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6/10 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Sukhdeo Oraon @ Sukhdev Oraon) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, 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 2025:JHHC:37837 --6-- Criminal Revision No. 1167 of 2025 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, 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 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 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/