Prince Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:25665]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 550 of 2025

Juvenile-xxxx, Aged about 16 years son Harendra Rawani Represented by his Mother namely Bina Devi wife of Harendra Rawani, R/o-Nayi Dilli, 12 Number Near Talab, P.O.-Dhansar, & P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶5

..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Informant. . ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate. ------

¶6

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Informant. .

¶7

04/ 27.08.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informantO.P. No. 2.

¶8

This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 04.03.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025, registered for the offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected and further prayer is made for setting aside the judgment dated 29.03.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad, whereby the order of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad has been confirmed by the learned appellate court.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and aged about 16 years and odd. He submits that although the charge is very heinous, however, the petitioner is a juvenile and it appears that the said crime has been done in innocence.

¶10

-1-

¶11

[2025:JHHC:25665]

¶12

He further submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 05.02.2025 and the petitioner is being represented by his mother and she is ready to give any undertaking and she will take care of the child and she will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and she will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard and disclosure to that effect has been made in para-10 of the petition. He submits that apart of this, no other case is pending against this petitioner.

¶13

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant jointly opposed the prayer and submit that the allegations are very heinous, as such, the petitioner is required to remain in remand home and both the learned Courts have rightly passed the order.

¶14

It transpires from the contents of the FIR that the crime is heinous, however the fact remains that the petitioner is a juvenile and he is being represented by his mother and his mother in para-10 of the petition has disclosed that she is ready to take care of the child. Further both the learned courts have rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that there is every likelihood to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶15

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.

¶16

-2-

¶17

[2025:JHHC:25665]

¶18

Section 12 of the said Act further stipulates 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.

¶19

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 keeking 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.

¶20

In view of above discussions, the Court find 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.

¶21

In view of the above, it transpires that the petitioner is a juvenile and his mother is representing this petitioner and mother is ready to take care of the petitioner and both the learned courts have rejected the prayer for bail on the basis of unfounded apprehension and in absence of any material or evidence of reasonable ground, it cannot be said that the released of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice.

¶22

-3-

¶23

[2025:JHHC:25665]

¶24

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 04.03.2025, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 and the judgment dated 29.03.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge, Children Court, Dhanbad, are hereby, set aside.

¶25

Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since 05.02.2025, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian / mother, in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 after furnishing personal bond on his mother (Bina Devi) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) Natural guardian/mother 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.

¶27

(ii) Natural guardian/mother 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.

¶28

(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/mother 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

¶30

-4-

¶31

[2025:JHHC:25665]

¶32

investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶33

With the above observation, this criminal revision is allowed and disposed of.

¶34

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶35

Amitesh/-

¶36

-5-

Prince Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Kumar 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

Ravi Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sapan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sardendu Dutta Alias Saradendu Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brother in Law of Victim Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhanraj Kumar Choudhary Alias Dhananjay Kumar Choudhary Alias Dhan Raj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arjun Tana Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand