Juvenile “X” Represented Through His Father vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.

Heard Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State.

This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.26/2026, registered for the offence under Sections 127(2), 65(2), 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6/10 of POCSO Act, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. The further prayer is made for setting-aside the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Giridih in Criminal (Miscellaneous) Appeal No.39/2026, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected and the order passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 17 years 9 months and 2 days at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case alleging that the petitioner has committed rape upon the victim. He then submits that the FIR has ben lodged by the mother of the victim. He next submits that due to village politics, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He also submits that by the last order, case diary was called for and the case diary has been received and in para 54 of the case diary, it has come that the victim has refused to go for medical check-up. He further submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and he will prevent the petitioner from associating with any known criminals and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He next submits that the petitioner is a student. He also submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 14.03.2026.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that both the learned courts have come to conclusion that the petitioner may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and in view of that, the learned courts have rightly passed the order.

In para 54 of the case diary, it has come that the victim has refused to go for medical check-up. The allegations are there against the petitioner of committing rape upon the victim. The petitioner was aged about 17 years 9 months and 2 days at the time of alleged crime. The petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready to give undertaking to the effect that the child will not be exposed to any moral, physical and phycological danger.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 clearly speaks 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.

It also transpires from Section 12 of the said Act that seriousness of 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.

Both the learned Courts have rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and he may come into contact with the criminals, however, what is the basis of coming to that finding, that is not clear from the judgments of the learned Courts. Further, the learned Courts have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist.

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 to the effect that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals and gravity of the offence and there is likelihood of moral, physical and psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail not founded on reasonable grounds.

In view of the above facts, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and, as such, the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.26/2026 and the order dated 16.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Children Court, Giridih in Criminal (Miscellaneous) Appeal No.39/2026 are, hereby, set aside.

Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 14.03.2026 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father in connection with Nimiyaghat P.S. Case No.26/2026, after furnishing a personal bond of his father (Premchand Mahto) with two sureties of his relative each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Giridih subject to the following conditions: -

Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of in above terms.