1. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st cum Special Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.243/2025 passed in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025, whereby, the prayer for bail of the petitioner/juvenile has been rejected and the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro passed in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025, registered for the offence under Section 115, 126(2),117, 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 303(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has been affirmed.

3. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner has been arrested and he is in observation home since 18.09.2025 and he is behind the bar w.e.f. that day and he has remained in custody for about 4 ½ months. He then submits that Social Investigation Report was called from the Probation Officer, Bokaro, wherein, it has been reported that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and it has been stated that proper parental guidance was not given to the petitioner. He next submits that even the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has come on confessional statement. He also submits that the petitioner is being represented through his father and the father is ready to give undertaking that he will 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 he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He further submits that the petitioner is a meritorious student. He next submits that the person, who has been named in the FIR, he has been granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.12.2025 in S.T. No. 377 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations of assault are there against the petitioner and in view of that, this criminal revision petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. 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 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 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.

8. 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 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, is not founded on reasonable grounds.

9. 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 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 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 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st cum Special Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.243/2025 passed in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025 and the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No.83/2025 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and, as such, both the judgment and order are, hereby, set-aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

10. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 18.09.2025 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in connection with Sector-4 P.S. Case No. 83/2025 after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Sanjay Yadav) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Bokaro, 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 further that 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 February, 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, Bokaro, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

11. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of.

12. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.