Bishwash Mukhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

 ( 2025:JHHC:26580 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 488 of 2025

¶3

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

¶4

The State of Jharkhand .…. … Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.

¶7

¶8

04/ 02.09.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶9

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella in Criminal (Bail) Appeal No. 29/2024 whereby the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella in connection with MCRA No. 1226/2024, Adityapur P.S. Case 144/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 379/2024 registered under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C, pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 17 years and filed the present revision application through his father. He submits that the father is ready to give undertaking that he will take care of the child and he will not allow the child to expose to any moral, physical, or psychological danger. He submits that the petitioner is in Remand Home since 19.05.2024. He submits that the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused Badal Gope. He submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He submits that the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement however he does not dispute that the petitioner is juvenile. .

¶12

In view of above facts, it is an admitted position that the petitioner is juvenile and he is in Remand Home since 19.05.2024 and his name has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is being represented by his father and he is giving undertaking that he will take care of the child.

¶13

It appears that both the courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner on the ground of lack of guidance.

¶14

It appears that undertaking given by the father has not been taken care of by both the Courts and the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶15

In view of above discussions, the Court finds that the reasoning and

¶16

¶17

 ( 2025:JHHC:26580 )

¶18

conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board is not good one.

¶19

In the light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 it 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.

¶20

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 selfdestructive 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.

¶21

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 lack of guidance. Thus, the judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Children Court, Seraikella in Criminal (Bail) Appeal No. 29/2024 and order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella in connection with MCRA No. 1226/2024, Adityapur P.S. Case 144/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 379/2024, are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶22

Let the revisionist who is in Remand Home, Seraikella since 19.05.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case 144/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 379/2024, after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Ratnakar Mukhi)) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Seraikella, subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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

¶25

¶26

 ( 2025:JHHC:26580 )

¶27

encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

¶28

(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 September, 2025, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶29

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

¶30

13 This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Satyarthi/-

¶33

Bishwash Mukhi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishwash Mukhi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Singh Alias Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avanish Kant Agnihotri Vs State of Jharkhand

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Rajwar Alias Pradeep Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Goyel Alias Rohit Goyal Vs the State of Jharkhand