Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.07.21
16:13:50 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 741 of 2025
ABC Nil
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Sirgitty Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
18/07 /2025
1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025 for condonation of delay in filing
the criminal revision.
2. On due consideration and finding the reasons given in the
said application to be satisfactory, I.A. No.01 is allowed and
the delay of 28 days in filing the revision stands condoned.
3. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has been
2
preferred against the impugned order dated 31.01.2025
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/
Juvenile Court, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025
upholding the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail
application of the applicant in connection with Crime
No.578/2024 registered at Police Station Sirgitty, Bilaspur
for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 3(5)
BNS was rejected.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.08.2024, there
was a quarrel between applicant and deceased Sourabh
Patre over drinking alcohol. Then, the applicant used
abusive language with Sourabh Patre and assaulted him by
knife causing grievous injuries to him. Sourabh Patre was
admitted at CIMS, Bilaspur, where he died during
treatment. On report being made in this regard, the said
offence has been registered against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.
There is no likelihood of his release would bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned
Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail.
Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant
3
may be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there are two
eye witnesses who have stated that on the date of incident,
the applicant assaulted the deceased with knife. She
submits that the knife was also seized from the applicant.
She further submits that continuous counselling of the
applicant is necessary and looking to the nature of the
crime committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not
be released on bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and
perused the material available on record.
8. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act (for short “the Act, 2015”) makes it absolutely
clear that a child alleged to be in conflict with law should
be released on bail with or without surety or placed under
the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of
any fit person. The only embargo created is that in case the
release of the child is likely to bring him into association
with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical
or psychological danger or where the release of the child
would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied.
9. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the
Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that since the reason
4
for the crime has been stated as the influence of the peer
group in the report given by the Probation Officer, there is a
possibility of the applicant coming in contact with other
criminals if released on bail.
10. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicant
holding that he needs continuous counseling and proper
care. The possibility of physical and psychological danger
to the child cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail.
By keeping him in an observation home, he will benefit
from child welfare schemes and regular counseling and
moral values will develop in him. The Probation Officer also
has the same suggestion.
11. Considering the findings given by the Juvenile Justice
Board and the Appellate Court and also considering the
report of the Probation Officer, the overall nature of the
crime and the fact that there is a major co-accused in this
case which gives rise to the suspicion that the company of
the juvenile has not been good, it is found that if the
applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him in
moral and psychological danger and the object of justice
would be defeated.
12. Releasing juvenile boys who have committed a heinous
crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold
justice, especially if their release is found to be against the
5
best interests of society and the victim’s family. The
Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the need for
rehabilitation of juveniles with the need for justice, but in
cases of extreme violence, the “ends of justice” provision in
the law can be invoked to deny the bail as their release
would lead to public outcry and a feeling that justice has
not been served.
13. For the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well
as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in
the revision. Accordingly, the present revision is
dismissed.
14. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and
ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link