[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
A Juvenile Conflict With Law vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:36653
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 574 of 2025
1 - A Juvenile Conflict With Law Xyz
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Police Station - City
Kotwali, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma )
Order on Board
28/07/2025
The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short
‘the Act 2015’) read with Sections 438 CRPC and Section 442 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated
12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.75/2025 by the Additional
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
Sessions Judge (FTC), District Durg (C.G.), whereby the learned
SUGUNA DUBEY
Date:
DUBEY 2025.07.30
10:37:49
+0530Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of
2order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Case No.41/2025 by the
Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Durg dismissing the bail
application of the present applicant.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused, who is
juvenile. The prosecution story, in brief, is that report was lodged by the
complainant on 2.11.2024 alleging that she received a phone call of
one Shubham who informed that her husband was stabbed with knife
and shifted to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Supela. When she
reached the hospital she found her husband lying dead and that the
juvenile in conflict with law was asking her husband to do some illegal
work to which he denied and therefore killed him. On the basis of the
said complaint, the police registered FIR No. 1179/2024 under Sections
103(1), 3(5), 238, 249 of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
The juvenile filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile
Justice Board vide order dated 31.01.2025. Against the said dismissal,
an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the impugned
order. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present
case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have
completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of
the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of
2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12
of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. Orders passed by both the
Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits
3
that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice
Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant I in the
observation home since 3.11.2024 and therefore, he may be extended
benefit of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that report has been
received from the Station House In charge, Supela, District Durg that
the juvenile in conflict with law has previous criminal antecedent against
him for the offence under Sections 294,506,323,307/34,147,148, and
149 of IPC. She submits that the orders passed by both the Courts
below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of
Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant
revision deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. It is true that in the case of a child who is in conflict with law,
approach of the court in the matter of grant of bail with or without surety
should be liberal and pragmatic but then the Court is also required to
see that such release of juvenile may not expose him to moral, physical
or psychological danger. This apart, the Court is also required to record
its satisfaction that release of a child in conflict with law is not likely to
bring him into association with any known criminal. The law mandates
that normally in such matters it would not be appropriate to keep the
juvenile in confinement but then it is also desirable that the court is
required to see prima facie criminal delinqueny of a child in conflict with
law.
4
7. On perusal of the record including the social status report
wherein it has been mentioned that the juvenile in conflict with law has
a history of criminal antecedents including his involvement in prior
offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307/34,147,148, and 149 of
IPC which indicate a pattern of delinquent behaviour reflecting
adversely on his conduct and propensity to indulge in unlawful
activities. Thus, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as
the appellate court, and the report of the probationary officer is also
indicative that there is a strong likelihood that the juvenile may again
come under the influence of other accused persons which may lead to
his further involvement in criminal activities thereby defeating the very
purpose of his rehabilitation and reform.
8. In view of above consideration,in the considered opinion of this
Court,releasing the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice
and therefore I feel declined to interfere with the impugned orders.
9. Consequently, the revision fails and is herby dismissed. However,
the Juvenile Justice Board is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
[ad_2]
Source link