[2026:JHHC:4391] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 1212 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. Anjani Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. ------ 02/ 16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also for quashing of order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Karaikela P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025 corresponding to Enquiry (Juvenile) Case No. 42 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime. He next submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 09.04.2025. He further submits that the FIR has been registered against unknown and there is four days delay in filing the said FIR, as the occurrence took place on 01.04.2025, wherein the FIR has been lodged on 05.04.2025. He then submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and his father is ready to give any undertaking [2026:JHHC:4391] -2- and he will take care of the child and he will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and he will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. On these grounds, he submits that regular bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that both the learned courts have rightly rejected the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. 5. It appears that there is delay of four days in registering the FIR and further the petitioner is not named in the FIR, however, in course of investigation, the name of this petitioner has come and further at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 16 years and he is in remand home since 09.04.2025 and his father is representing this petitioner and he is ready to take care of the petitioner and he will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and he will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. 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 moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. From 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. Section [2026:JHHC:4391] -3- 12 of the Act is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature. 8. 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 keeping 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on heinousness of the offence. 11. Thus, the judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children’s Court, West [2026:JHHC:4391] -4- Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2025 and the order dated 25.08.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in connection with Karaikela P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025 corresponding to Enquiry (Juvenile) Case No. 42 of 2025, are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed. 12. Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since 09.04.2025, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian / father, in connection with Karaikela P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025 corresponding to Enquiry (Juvenile) Case No. 42 of 2025, after furnishing personal bond of his father (Mangal Singh Tanti @ Mangal Tanti) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, 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 March, 2026, [2026:JHHC:4391] -5- 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, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 13. With the above observation, this criminal revision is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-16.02.2026 Amitesh/-