Tajuddin Ansari Alias Charku Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also for quashing of order dated 07.10.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025 corresponding to E.N. No. 222 of 2025, registered for the offence under section 64(2)(i) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile and he was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged occurrence and allegations are made of establishing the physical relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. He next submits that the petitioner and the victim were in relationship since last two years, wherein the FIR has only been registered on 01.06.2025. He then submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 01.06.2025. He further submits that in the social investigation report, it has come that due to love affair, the case has been lodged. He also submits that the

¶11

-1-

¶12

[2026:JHHC:4336]

¶13

learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner only on the ground that he will be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger. He then submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and his father is ready to give any undertaking and he will take care of the child and he will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and he will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. On these grounds, he submits that regular bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations are there of establishing physical relationship with the victim on the false pretext of marriage.

¶15

Looking into the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the victim and the petitioner were in relationship since last two years, wherein the FIR has only been registered on 01.06.2025 and further at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was aged about 17 years and he is in remand home since 01.06.2025 and further his father is representing this petitioner and he is ready to take care of the petitioner and he will not allow him to accompany any known criminal and he will not allow him to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is also ready to swear an affidavit in this regard.

¶16

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

¶17

-2-

¶18

[2026:JHHC:4336]

¶19

moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 keeping 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.

¶22

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 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.

¶23

The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and the mandatory provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions relating to the juvenile has declined to grant bail to the juvenile on the basis of unfounded apprehension. 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

¶24

-3-

¶25

[2026:JHHC:4336]

¶26

on three contingencies for declining the bail to the. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on heinousness of the offence.

¶27

Thus, the judgment dated judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Children Court, Deoghar, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025 and the order dated 07.10.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025 corresponding to E.N. No. 222 of 2025, are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶28

Let the revisionist, who is in observation home since 01.06.2025, be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian / father, in connection with Palajori P.S. Case No. 34 of 2025 corresponding to E.N. No. 222 of 2025, after furnishing personal bond of his father (Abdul Miyan @ Abdul Ansari) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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 encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his

¶31

-4-

¶32

[2026:JHHC:4336]

¶33

time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

¶34

(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 March, 2026, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶35

(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, Deoghar, on such a periodical basis as the

¶36

Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶37

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

¶38

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶39

Dated:-16.02.2026 Amitesh/-

¶40

-5-

Tajuddin Ansari Alias Charku Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

Tajuddin Ansari Alias Charku Ansari 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

Mujaffar Alam Alias Mujkar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanu Phalahari Alias Subham Satwik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samir Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Pintoo Yadav Alias Pintoo Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhaneshwar Prasad Yadav Alias Dhaneshwar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand