Gravity of Offence Bars Bail for Juvenile in Stabbing Case: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that while the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 generally favors bail for juveniles, the gravity of a heinous offence like murder can justify the denial of liberty for a minor directly involved in a fatal assault. While granting relief to a co-accused juvenile whose role was identical to others already on bail, the court refused to extend the same leniency to a juvenile facing direct allegations of stabbing the deceased.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi presided over the matter, hearing two separate criminal revision petitions arising from the same FIR. The court balanced the mandatory bail provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 against the specific roles played by the juveniles in a violent incident during a religious procession, distinguishing between a minor who allegedly caught hold of the victim and one who delivered the fatal blow.

Key Takeaways

Direct Role Overrides Leniency

Juveniles facing direct and specific allegations of executing a heinous crime, such as stabbing, may find it harder to secure bail despite the protective nature of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015.

Parity with Major Accused

If a juvenile's role is identical to major accused persons who have already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench, the juvenile is entitled to similar relief based on the principle of parity.

Guardian Accountability

Bail for a juvenile is contingent upon strict undertakings from natural guardians to ensure the minor does not associate with criminals or face moral and physical danger.

Rehabilitative Supervision

The court emphasizes the role of Probation Officers in monitoring a juvenile’s post-release conduct, ensuring educational pursuit rather than just physical liberty.

Court Observations on Section 12 of the JJ Act

The court clarified the legal position regarding the grant of bail to minors in conflict with the law. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, it transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile is 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."

However, regarding the petitioner accused of stabbing, the court noted that the gravity of the offence and the direct allegation could not be overlooked. The Court has the following directions:

"(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 October, 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, Hazaribag on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine."

Ratio

While Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015, mandates a non-discriminatory approach toward bail for all juveniles regardless of the nature of the offence, the Court retains the discretion to deny bail if the specific role and gravity of the act (such as direct stabbing in a murder case) suggest that the juvenile’s release would not be in the interest of justice or their own welfare, unless parity with other released co-accused is established.

Background

The case originated from Daru P.S. Case No. 20 of 2026, involving charges under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), and 3(5) of the BNS. The incident occurred during a Ramnavmi procession where three individuals allegedly caught hold of the victim while one stabbed him. Following the victim's death, Section 103(1) of the BNS (murder) was added. The Juvenile Justice Board and the Children Court, Hazaribag, had previously rejected the bail applications of two juveniles, "X" and "Y".

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued they had been in a remand home since April 2026 and that their parents were willing to provide undertakings for their good behavior. They also cited B.A. No.7437 of 2026, where major accused persons in the same case were granted bail by a Coordinate Bench. The Court distinguished the two petitions: it allowed bail for Manish Kumar @ Verma (Juvenile "X") on grounds of parity but dismissed the petition for Karan Kumar (Juvenile "Y") due to the direct allegation of stabbing supported by the deceased's statement.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 939 of 2026 With Criminal Revision No. 931 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:29519
Case Title: Juvenile “X” through his father v. The State of Jharkhand With Juvenile “Y” through his mother v. The State of Jharkhand
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.; Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 3177