The High Court of Jharkhand has reaffirmed that seriousness or gravity of the alleged offence, age above 16 years, or the nature of allegation alone are not legitimate grounds to deny bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015; instead, courts must record reasonable grounds for each of the three statutory exceptions. This decision upholds statutory interpretation, clarifies guiding criteria for subordinate courts, and serves as binding precedent within Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.Rev./324/2025 of RAHUL MANDAL ALIAS RAHUL KUMAR MANDAL Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010093992025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within Jharkhand; clarifies Section 12 JJ Act application |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Juvenile Justice Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail to a juvenile in conflict with law can be denied solely on the gravity of accusation or alleged seriousness of offence under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The order makes clear that Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 does not permit denial of bail on grounds of seriousness of the alleged offence, age, or nature of crime alone. Bail can only be refused to a juvenile if there are reasonable grounds for believing that:
There is no separate category for “heinous” offences above age 16 or otherwise. The impugned orders denying bail, having considered only the gravity of the offence and not these statutory criteria, were set aside as unsustainable. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Order of Coordinate Bench in B.A. No.8631 of 2024 dated 14.01.2025 referred |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015; mandatory statutory criteria for bail to juveniles. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a 17-year-old juvenile, was denied bail by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and appellate Children Court, Deoghar, in relation to alleged offences under sections 376, 34 IPC and 67/67A IT Act. Both courts denied bail considering only the gravity of allegation. The High Court found lack of evidence of the three statutory exceptions in Section 12 and set aside the denial of bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Juvenile Justice Boards within Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering Section 12 of JJ Act |
| Follows | Interpretation of Section 12 JJ Act as requiring specific statutory grounds for denial of bail |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that seriousness or gravity of offence alone is NOT a valid ground for refusing bail to juveniles under Section 12 JJ Act.
- Explicitly clarifies that age (even above 16) and classification of “heinous” offence do not by themselves bar bail.
- Orders must record specific, reasoned findings on each of the three statutory grounds (association with criminals, exposure to danger, defeat of justice) to justify denial of bail.
- Distinguishes prior practice of denial based solely on allegations or seriousness.
- Can be cited to challenge mechanical rejection of juvenile bail on the seriousness of allegations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides bail shall be granted to a juvenile unless the court is satisfied on reasonable grounds that (i) release is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (iii) release would defeat the ends of justice.
- The statutory language makes seriousness of the offence, age of the juvenile, or classification as “heinous” irrelevant for bail decisions under this provision.
- The Board and appellate court denied bail only considering the gravity of offence, without recording reasonable or specific findings as to the three exceptions.
- No material or evidence was found on record to substantiate any of the three statutory exceptions.
- Given this omission and the absence of supporting evidence or reasonable grounds, the orders denying bail were found unsustainable and set aside.
- The High Court directed release of the juvenile on specific conditions, underscoring the importance of tailored, reasoned orders compliant with statute.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner was 17 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence.
- The petitioner is the informant’s nephew, and allegations are false.
- No medical report is on record.
- The bail was denied solely on the gravity of offence, not on the statutory grounds.
- Petitioner has been in the remand home since 28.10.2023; his mother is ready to give undertaking to ensure no moral, physical or psychological danger.
State and Victim
- Opposed the bail plea.
- Asserted that allegations are serious and certain photographs are taken.
- Supported rejection of bail on gravity of allegations.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a family context between the juvenile (aged 17) and his aunt, leading to registration of Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 54 of 2023 under sections 376, 34 IPC and 67/67A IT Act. The juvenile was denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate Children Court, both citing gravity of allegation. No medical evidence was cited in the orders. The juvenile has been in the remand home since 28.10.2023, with bail sought through his mother.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 12 mandates bail as the norm for juveniles unless one of three exceptions is established by reasonable grounds.
- Seriousness of offence, age (above 16), or classification as “heinous” have no bearing on bail eligibility under this provision.
- Courts must apply Section 12 equally to all juveniles in conflict with law, without creating unauthorized classifications or discriminations.
- Orders denying bail must be individualized and based on proof relevant to the statutory exceptions, not presumed dangers or seriousness of accusations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Bail release made conditional upon specific undertakings and reporting requirements by the juvenile’s natural guardian/mother.
- Mandated periodic social investigation reports to the Juvenile Justice Board by the Probation Officer to ensure ongoing compliance and supervision.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Statutory interpretation of Section 12 JJ Act reaffirmed