Chattisgarh High Court
Abc (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.28
15:24:54
+0530
2025:CGHC:28682
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 599 of 2025
ABC (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant
And The Name Of Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Of Police Station Chirmiri District - Manendragarh - Chirmiri -
Bharatpur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Adv.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
27/06/2025
1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for
short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the
impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by learned
Special Judge (under POCSO Act), Chirmiri, District Koriya
(CG) in Criminal Appeal Case No.31/2025, upholding the
order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Principal Judge of
Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya
2
(C.G.) in Criminal Case No.10/2025 whereby the bail
application of the applicant in connection with Crime
No.8/2025 registered at Police Station Chirmiri, District –
Koriya (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act
was rejected.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 08.02.2024, the applicant
took the minor victim with him to Podi, then to his village
Lai and kept her with him for two days. On 10.02.2024, he
took the victim to Baikunthpur, where he committed sexual
intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. On report
being made in this regard, the said offence has been
registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has no criminal past, he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated. The applicant is about 16 years
old, he is in the observation home since 03.04.2025. The
social status report is also in favour of applicant. 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. The learned trial
Court has in mechanical manner rejected the bail.
Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant
may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant
was also involved in the crime in question. However, the
social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he
has no criminal antecedents. He also submits that the age
of the applicant is about 16 years.
5. Section 12 of 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
3
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.
6. Be that as it may, a social status report has been submitted
by the concerned Probation Officer and a bare perusal of it
would show that the conduct of the applicant is good. The
applicant and the victim met through Instagram and used
to talk on mobile phone. As per the parents and sister of
the applicant, the victim took the applicant with her to
Baikunthpur where they stayed for about 15-20 days. The
applicant went out of the house in the name of eating
Phulki without telling anyone and when he was returning
home, the police caught him and took to the police station.
Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report
that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in
association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise
defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the
grounds are thus available to reject the application filed
under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. Both the Courts have,
therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the
application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015.
7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Upper Sessions
Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and
the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the
parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of
the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be
given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail
4
bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card
full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as
well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the
trial Court.
8. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish
an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact
with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be
indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the
applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai