Mukesh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:27775

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

------

¶4

Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025

¶5

Juvenile ‘X’ through his father ...... … Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party With Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025

¶7

Juvenile ‘X’ through his father ...... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party

¶8

-------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

-------

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr Tiwari, Advocate Mrs.Anuradha Sahay, Advocate ------

¶11

05/11.09.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for State.

¶12

In Criminal Revision No.436 of 2025, the prayer has been made for setting aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.06/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000221-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 lodged under section 140(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (charge sheet submitted under section 140(1), 65(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 6 of POCSO, Act) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as the aforesaid appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur has rejected the bail of the petitioner, and the case is pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur.

¶13

As the Cr. Revision No.437 of 2025 is arising out of same F.I.R, however, the Appeal number and impugned order are different and in view of that, both the criminal revision petitions have been taken together. 4. In Criminal Revision No.437 of 2025, the prayer has been made for

¶14

-1- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &

¶15

Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025

¶16

2025:JHHC:27775

¶17

setting aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.05/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000220-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 lodged under section 140(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (charge sheet submitted under section 140(1), 65(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and section 6 of POCSO, Act) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as the aforesaid appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025 whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur has rejected the bail of the petitioners, and the case is pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners has been falsely implicated in this case and both the petitioners are aged about 15 years and 16 years, respectively at the time of alleged crime and they are in remand home since 07.12.2024. He submits that the petitioners are having no criminal antecedent and both the petitioners are being represented through their respective fathers and their fathers are ready to give undertaking to the effect that petitioner(s) will not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. He submits that false allegations are made and the trial court records have been received, wherein the victim has stated that she has gone along with the petitioners on her own will. He submits that the learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application only on the ground that Final Form has not been submitted and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application considering that the petitioners will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State appearing in respective cases, have opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are there against the petitioners of taking away the girl along with them and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order.

¶20

It appears that admittedly the petitioners are juvenile and they are aged about 15 and 16 years the petitioners and have remained in remand home since 07.12.2024 and they are being represented by their fathers and their fathers are ready to give undertaking that the petitioners will not be exposed to any moral, physical and psychological danger and they will take care of their child so that they will not be exposed to any moral or psychological danger.

¶21

The learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application

¶22

-2- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &

¶23

Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025

¶24

2025:JHHC:27775

¶25

only on the ground that final form was not submitted and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application apprehending that the petitioners will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶26

It further transpires that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles was not properly considered by the learned both the courts. 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 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.

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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 petitioners 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.

¶30

The gravity of allegation has to be considered in the light of the provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions relating to the

¶31

-3- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &

¶32

Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025

¶33

2025:JHHC:27775

¶34

juvenile and on the basis of unfounded apprehension, the bail cannot be rejected. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that their release would defeat the ends of justice and both the courts 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 non-filing of the final form and exposure of the petitioners to the moral, physical as well as psychological danger which does not sound to be good reason to reject the bail of the petitioners.

¶35

As such, the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.06/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000221-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025, and order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03000003-2025 in Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025, as well as, the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.05/2025 CNR No.JHPK01-000220-2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025, and the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Pakur (Town) P.S. Case no.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025, in Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025 are set aside and both the present criminal revision petitions are allowed.

¶36

Let both the revisionist who are in observation home since 07.12.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by their natural guardian/father, in connection with Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 [Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025] in Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 and Pakur (Town) P.S. Case No.303 of 2024, being Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 [Juvenile Case No.02 of 2025 vide CRN No.JHPK03-000003-2025] in Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025, after furnishing a personal bond of their respective father (Manoj Mandal and Jadu Mandal) with two sureties of their relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Pakur, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(i) Natural guardian/father (in respective cases) will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionists 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

¶38

Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025

¶39

-4- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 &

¶40

2025:JHHC:27775

¶41

and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶42

(ii) Natural guardian/father (in respective cases) 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.

¶43

(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father (in respective cases) will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of October, 2025, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶44

(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, Pakur, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶45

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, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.

¶46

Both the present revision petitions have been filed by the revisionists through their natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juveniles. 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 Shilpa Mittal (supra) .

¶47

Both these criminal revision petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶48

Let the trial court records be sent back to the learned court

¶49

forthwith.

¶50

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶51

SI/

¶52

-5- Cr. Revision No. 436 of 2025 & Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2025

Mukesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

Mukesh Mandal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sadhana Jaipuriar Alias Sadhana Jayapuriar Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Mukesh Kumar Singh Alias Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharam Kumar Sao Vs Resam Sao

Mukesh Kumar Mandal Alias Mukesh Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand