Surya Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in Bagru P.S. Case No.05 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No.205 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 342, 363, 366A, 376D of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. The further prayer is made for setting-aside the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2024, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial court has been affirmed.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile, he was aged about 13 years at the time of alleged offence. She submits that the petitioner is being represented by her mother. She further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. She submits that

¶12

-1-

¶13

Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2025

¶14

( 2025:JHHC:26452 )

¶15

the petitioner was the person, who has tried to save the girl when the attempt was made by others to outrage her modesty and sexual exploitation. She also submits that the petitioner is innocent and he is in remand home since 25.02.2024. By way of drawing attention of the Court to the crossexamination of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.3, she has deposed in paragraph 11 that the petitioner has not done any cruelty against her and he has tried to save the girl from other persons. She further submits that the matter has already been settled between the parties and joint compromise petition being I.A. No.7584 of 2025 has been filed. She submits that two of the juveniles have already been granted bail in Criminal Revision Nos.511 of 2025 and 513 of 2025. She submits that the mother of the petitioner is ready to give any undertaking that 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. She submits that the learned trial court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground of gravity of the offence and identical is the situation in rejecting the appeal by the learned appellate court.

¶16

4. The above fact is being accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the informant/victim by way of filing Vakalatnama. He submits that compromise has also taken place so far as the petitioner is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the State is not disputing the fact that the victim has deposed in her cross-examination in paragraph 11 that the petitioner has tried to save her from other persons.

¶17

6. In view of the above facts, it is admitted position that in paragraph 11 of cross-examination, the victim has deposed that the petitioner has tried to

¶18

-2-

¶19

Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2025

¶20

( 2025:JHHC:26452 )

¶21

save her. The petitioner is a juvenile and his mother, who is representing him, is ready to take care of the petitioner. Further, two of the other juveniles have already been granted bail in the aforesaid criminal revisions.

¶22

7. 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

¶23

(i) If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal;

¶24

(ii) Expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

¶25

(iii) The person’s release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶26

8. 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 12 of the Act is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature.

¶27

9. The learned trial court and the learned appellate court both have rejected the prayer for bail only on the ground considering the gravity of offence. This Court finds that the said reasoning does not sound good. 10. In that view of the matter, the order dated 09.05.2024, passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga, in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 205 of 2024, and the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2024

¶28

-3-

¶29

Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2025

¶30

( 2025:JHHC:26452 )

¶31

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Children Court, Lohardaga are, hereby, set-aside.

¶32

11. Let the revisionist, who are in remand home since 25.02.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother in connection with Bagru P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. No. 205 of 2024 after furnishing personal bond of his mother with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence;

¶34

(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;

¶35

(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/mother will report to the Probation Officer on the second Monday of every calendar month commencing with the second Monday of September, 2025, and if during any calendar month the second Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day;

¶36

-4-

¶37

Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2025

¶38

( 2025:JHHC:26452 )

¶39

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

¶40

12. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶41

13. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.

¶42

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶43

Ajay/

¶44

-5-

¶45

Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2025

Surya Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Oraon 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

Yuvraj Khariya through His Natural Guardian (Mother) Deomuni Khariyain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daisy Prasad Vs the Delhi Public School Ranchi

Prabhu Kumar Alias Prabhu Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Department

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