The Jharkhand High Court reiterates that, under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, bail is the rule for all juveniles in conflict with law—irrespective of age or seriousness of the alleged offence—unless release is shown to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. This judgment upholds and clarifies the prevailing precedent and serves as binding authority within Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.Rev./488/2025 of BISHWASH MUKHI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010013602025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Jharkhand |
| Type of Law | Criminal (Juvenile Justice) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The seriousness of the offence or a juvenile’s age above 16 years are not relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Section 12 applies to all juveniles without discrimination, regardless of the nature of the offence. Bail may only be denied where the exceptions in Section 12 are satisfied—i.e., if release is likely to bring the child into association with known criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The lower courts erred by refusing bail on mere grounds of lack of guidance, without addressing the statutory exceptions or giving cogent reasons. The object of the Juvenile Justice Act is reformation and social reintegration, not punishment. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Based reasoning on legislative intent of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the wording of Section 12; no discrimination provided for in grant of bail; rationale rooted in reformative, not punitive, purpose for juvenile justice; the three statutory contingencies in Section 12 discussed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner, a juvenile aged about 17, in remand home since 19.05.2024 in connection with a murder case (Sections 302/34 IPC). Bail rejected by Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court on the ground of lack of guidance, despite no criminal antecedent and assurance from the father. The name of the petitioner appeared only in a co-accused’s confessional statement. Father willing to give undertaking regarding the juvenile’s welfare. |
| Citations | (2025:JHHC:26580) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court, especially regarding uniform application of Section 12, JJ Act. |
| Overrules | None specified; sets aside lower appellate and JJB orders in the case. |
| Follows | Applies literal interpretation and established precedent regarding Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015; specific prior precedents not named in the judgment. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicitly holds that there is no ground in Section 12, JJ Act, 2015 to deny bail to a juvenile solely on the basis of seriousness of the offence or the fact that the juvenile is above sixteen years of age.
- Reinforces that the only three legally relevant grounds for denial of bail are those listed in Section 12: likelihood of association with known criminals, moral/physical/psychological danger, or risk of justice being defeated.
- Criticizes lower courts for not considering undertakings from natural guardians and failing to provide specific reasons based on the statutory exceptions.
- Reiterates that the Act is fundamentally reformative, not punitive, and that restrictive interpretations are unwarranted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first established the admitted facts: the petitioner is a juvenile, in custody since May 2024, with no prior criminal record and whose implication arises only from a co-accused’s confession.
- The father’s undertaking regarding care and moral protection of the juvenile was placed before the Court.
- The lower courts had rejected bail simply on “lack of guidance” without examining statutory grounds or considering the undertaking.
- The Court interpreted Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, stating that it does not discriminate based on age above 16 or on the seriousness of the alleged offence; all juveniles are eligible for bail unless one of the three statutory exceptions applies.
- Highlighted the legislative purpose of the Act is child welfare, not punishment, and that denying bail without evidence of statutory exceptions defeats this purpose.
- Found no material or reasoning justifying the conclusion that releasing the juvenile would bring him into association with criminals, expose him to danger, or defeat ends of justice.
- Concluded that the orders of the lower courts were unsustainable and set them aside, granting bail subject to strict conditions and undertakings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner is aged about 17 years and filed the revision through his father.
- The father is prepared to give an undertaking to ensure the child’s care and protection.
- Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
- Petitioner has been in remand home since 19.05.2024.
- The only evidence is the co-accused’s confessional statement.
- Requested release on bail.
State
- Opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner’s name appeared in the confessional statement of a co-accused.
- Did not dispute the petitioner’s status as a juvenile.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a juvenile aged around 17, was implicated in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, based primarily on a co-accused’s confessional statement. He was detained in a remand home since 19.05.2024. Both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court rejected his bail on the ground of lack of guidance, not referring to any statutory exceptions. The petitioner’s father offered to give a formal undertaking regarding the child’s welfare and prevention from negative influences.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court closely analyzed Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
- It concluded that neither seriousness of the offence nor age above sixteen figures as relevant grounds for denying bail in the text of Section 12.
- Section 12 mandates bail to all juveniles unless their release is likely to (i) bring them into association with known criminals, (ii) expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (iii) defeat the ends of justice.
- The statute provides no other exception or categorization for denial of bail.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court imposed detailed, structured conditions for bail, including monthly reporting to the Probation Officer and social investigation reports, to ensure proper supervision and rehabilitation rather than mere release.
- Emphasized the requirement for the natural guardian/father to furnish specific undertakings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is reaffirmed and clarified.
Citations
- (2025:JHHC:26580)