KARAN KUMAR vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:31549 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
No. 1212 of 2026
Criminal Revision
Juvenile “X” represented through his father … Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
-----
02/28.10.2026 Heard Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms. Anuradha Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred for setting-aside the
order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Godda in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.89 of
2026 arising out of Enquiry No.206 of 2026, registered for the offence under
Sections 96 and 78/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012,
whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. The further
prayer is made for setting-aside the order dated 31.07.2026, whereby, the
prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.29 of
2026, whereby, the learned appellate court has been pleased to reject the
prayer to release the petitioner on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
juvenile and he was aged about 15 years and 10 months at the time of alleged
crime. He further submits that the allegations are made that the petitioner
has taken the victim girl along with him to Surat and returned after three
days. He then submits that after return, the victim girl has voluntarily gone
-1- Criminal Revision No. 1212 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:31549 )
to her parents’ house. He next submits that the petitioner and victim girl were
liking each other and in view of that they went together and that has also
come in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the
BNSS and that has also been taken into consideration by the learned appellate
court, however, he has been pleased to reject the prayer for bail of the
petitioner considering that the crime is heinous in nature. He also submits
that the petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready
to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and
character in future and he will prevent the petitioner from associating with
any known criminal and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological
danger and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He also submits
that the petitioner is a student and his entire career will ruin if he will remain
in custody. On these grounds, he submits that the prayer for bail may kindly
be granted to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and
submits that the girl was minor and in view of that, both the learned courts
have rightly rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
5. It has come in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that
the victim has stated that she was in love affairs with the petitioner and that
statement was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration that the Social
Investigation Report is not adverse and the petitioner is having no criminal
antecedent and his mental condition was also found normal by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in light of the Social Investigation Report. However,
the learned appellate court has not been pleased to release the petitioner
-2- Criminal Revision No. 1212 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:31549 )
considering gravity of allegation.
6. The petitioner is being represented through his father and the father
of the petitioner is ready to give any undertaking to the effect that the child
will not be exposed to any moral, physical and phycological danger.
7. On perusal of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015, it is crystal clear that it overrides the bail provisions
as contained in the Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 (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 moral, physical or psychological
danger, or, (iii) the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice.
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 and is alleged to
have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section
12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in
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.
9. Both the learned courts have been pleased to reject the bail application
of the petitioner only on the ground of gravity of allegation. Even in the Social
Investigation Report, nothing adverse has been noted in the judgment of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge. In absence of any material or evidence of
-3- Criminal Revision No. 1212 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:31549 )
reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that release of the petitioner would
defeat the ends of justice and both the learned courts have failed to give
reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist.
10. The petitioner is being represented by his father and the father is ready
to give undertaking that he will keep the petitioner in good behaviour and
character in future and he will prevent the petitioner from associating with
any known criminal and from exposing him to moral, physical or psychological
danger.
11. In view of above facts, the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Godda in connection with
Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.89 of 2026 arising out of Enquiry No.206 of 2026
and the order dated 31.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-1-cum-Children Court, Godda in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2026 are,
hereby, set aside.
12. Since the revisionist is in observation home since 07.05.2026, he is
directed to be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural
guardian/father in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No.89 of 2026,
arising out of Enquiry No.206 of 2026, after furnishing a personal bond of his
father (Pradeep Kumar Ram @ Pradeep Kumar Chandravanshi) with two
sureties of his relative each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile
Justice Board, Godda subject to the following conditions: -
(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
-4- Criminal Revision No. 1212 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:31549 )
further the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the
offence.
(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 time in
unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.
(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation
Officer on the second Monday of every calendar month
commencing with the second Monday of November, 2026, and if
during any calendar month the second Monday falls on a holiday,
then on the following working day.
(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, Godda on
such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may
determine.
13. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is disposed of in above terms.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
th
Dated: 28 October, 2026
Ajay/
Uploaded on
th
30 October, 2026
-5- Criminal Revision No. 1212 of 2026