Samir Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:4367

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

¶3

----

¶4

Juvenile ‘X’ through his mother .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --For the Petitioner :- Mr. Aman Ali, Advocate :- Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate ----

¶7

03 /16.02.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶8

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge (Children’s Court), Simdega, in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2025 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega in connection with Kolebira, P.S. Case No.65 of 2025 (G.R. Case No.280 of 2025) Misc. Criminal Application No.947 of 2025 whereby the regular bail of the petitioner has been denied for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 77, 126(2) and 127(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

¶10

--1--

¶11

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

¶12

2026:JHHC:4367

¶13

juvenile aged about 15 years at the time of alleged occurrence and the victim girl was aged about 13½ years. He further submits that the allegation of missing of the victim was since 16.07.2025 but the FIR has been lodged on 20.07.2025. He then submits that the allegation of sexual exploitation is three years back, however, at that time the case was not lodged. He next submits that false allegations are made of exploiting the victim on the pretext of certain video which is not correct. He also submits that the victim has herself left out her home and returned after three days. He next submits that the petitioner is in remand home since 21.07.2025.

¶14

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that allegations are there of exploiting the victim.

¶15

5. The petitioner is in remand home since 21.07.2025 and both the children are minor and the allegation of missing is there since 16.07.2025 and the FIR has been lodged on 20.07.2025 and after three days she has returned to her him. In the course of argument, it has been pointed out that the petitioner is being represented by his mother and she is ready to give undertaking to keep the petitioner in good behaviour and character in future and will prevent him from associating with any known criminal and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger and she is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard.

¶16

6. 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 that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure, 1973

¶17

--2--

¶18

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

¶19

2026:JHHC:4367

¶20

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 :

¶21

(i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal, or

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

7. In light of 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 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.

¶25

8. 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.

¶26

9. 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

¶27

--3--

¶28

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

¶29

2026:JHHC:4367

¶30

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.

¶31

10. The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and mandatory provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 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 materials or evidences of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and the learned Court has 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 heinousness of the offence. Thus, the judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (Children’s Court), Simdega, in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2025 and the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega in connection with Kolebira, P.S. Case No.65 of 2025 (G.R. Case No.280 of 2025) Misc. Criminal Application No.947 of 2025 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are hereby set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶32

11. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 21.07.2025 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother, in connection with Kolebira, P.S. Case No.65 of 2025 (G.R. Case No.280 of 2025) Misc. Criminal Application No.947 of 2025 registered under Sections 65(1), 77, 126(2) and 127(3) of Bharatiya

¶33

--4--

¶34

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

¶35

2026:JHHC:4367

¶36

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act pending in the Court of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega after furnishing a personal bond on his mother (Saraswati Bibi) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Simdega, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

12. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi,

¶42

--5--

¶43

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

¶44

2026:JHHC:4367

¶45

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

¶46

13. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural guardian/mother. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile.

¶47

14. The Registry is directed to conceal the name 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpa Mittal (supra).

¶48

15. This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶49

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶50

Dated 16.02.2026 Sangam/

¶51

--6--

¶52

Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2026

Samir Khan v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samir Khan v. 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

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

Tajuddin Ansari Alias Charku Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintoo Yadav Alias Pintoo Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhaneshwar Prasad Yadav Alias Dhaneshwar Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand