Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:40191
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 752 of 2025
1 - Abc (Accused In Observation Home)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. GA
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
11/08/2025
This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of
the minor ‘X’ through his natural guardian being aggrieved by the order
dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, having additional
charge of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) and Childrens Court,
2
Bilaspur, CG arising out of the FIR lodged on 14.02.2024 in Crime No.
176 of 2024 under Sections 377, and 457 IPC and 4 & 6 of the POCSO
Act was rejected.
2. Earlier the revision has been filed on behalf of the child in conflict
with law ‘XYZ’ through his natural guardian/father before this Court
which has been rejected on merits vide order dated 19.06.2024 in CR.R.
No. 335 of 2024. Subsequently, second revision was filed assailing the
said order and on 28.11.2024, it was dismissed as not maintainable.
Thereafter, the child in conflict with law through his natural guardian
challenged this order before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 7921/2025 and without entering into the merits of the case,
upheld the order dated 28.11.2024, granting liberty to the applicant to
seek bail afresh before the Juvenile Board. The Juvenile Board
dismissed the bail application on the ground that there is no change in
the circumstances and statements of five prosecution witnesses have
been recorded.
3. Aggrieved by the above orders, this criminal revision has been
preferred to set aside the same and to admit the child in conflict with law
on bail.
It is the case of prosecution that FIR was lodged by the mother of
the victims alleging that she works in the Fancy store at Mungeli Naaka
and resides with her two children and her brother. On the date of
incident i.e.11.02.2024, she had gone to Bhanwar Taunk along with the
staff and owner and came back to her house at about 12 O’clock and in
the morning, she went to her workplace as usual. Later on, her
3
neighbour sent a video to her mobile of the incident and in the night,
when she asked her children, they narrated that on 11.02.2024, in the
evening at about 6-7.00 p.m. when their uncle went to buy vegetables,
the applicant (juvenile) came to return the sickle and finding loneliness
of the children, removed his pant, locked the door and committed
unnatural sex with her daughters and thereafter he threatened them not
to disclose to anyone or else he will beat them. On the basis of the said
FIR, Crime No. 176/2024 for the offence under Sections 377 & 457 IPC
and 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was
registered against the applicant.
4. First and foremost contention of the counsel for the applicant is
that the gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing
bail to the juvenile. The gravity or seriousness of the offence should not
be taken as an obstacle or hindrance to refuse the bail to delinquent
juvenile. It is contended that there exists no material to justify rejection
of bail on the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act. In view of the
above provisions, the ‘child in conflict with law’, who has been in custody
for quite a long time deserves to be released on bail otherwise, the
purpose of provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act shall
stand defeated. It is also contended that care of the juvenile in a child
care institution cannot be preferred over his care in his biological family.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail
application of the revisionist and submitted that specific allegation has
been made against the revisionist and as per the social investigation
report, there is a general assessment of his behavioural tendency
4
however, the manner of commission of crime and the nature thereof
cannot be ignored while striking a balance between the demands of
justice of either of the sides. Hence, it cannot be said that the nature of
the crime, the manner or methodology applied, the extent of
involvement and evidence available are of no relevance when judging
the entitlement of a juvenile to bail in cases where heinous crimes are
committed. The ends of justice is undoubtedly a meaningful phrase with
multidimensional implications. The Courts are under obligation to
address the concerns of both the sides and strike a delicate balance
between the competing and often conflicting the demands of justice.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and their rival submissions
and have gone through the order of the Juvenile Board as well as the
Social Investigation Report.
7. In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhi Hirjibhai Vs. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
“In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony
of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of
corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why
should the evidence of the girl or the woman who
complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed
with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged
with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to
justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male
dominated society. We must analyze the argument in
support of the need for corroboration and subject it to
relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And
we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated,
eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly
5planted on the soil of India and with our eyes
focused on the Indian horizon. We must not be
swept off the feet by the approach made in the
Western World which has its own social milieu, its
own social mores, its own permissive values, and its
own code of life. Corroboration may be considered
essential to establish a sexual offence in the
backdrop of the social ecology of the Western World.
It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept
on a turn-key basis and to transplant it on the Indian
soil regardless of the altogether different
atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the
Indian Society and its profile.”
8. Similarly, in the matter of State of A.P. Vs. Bodem Sundara
Rao, 1995 (6) SCC 230, the Apex Court has cautioned the Courts while
dealing with the cases of sexual crime against women in the following
words:
“Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing
act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and
sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her
supreme honour and offends her self esteem and
dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and
where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it
leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts
are, therefore, expected to deal with the cases of
sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity.
Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and
severely.”
9. In Madan Gopal Kakkad V. Naval Dubey and Another, 1992
SCR (2) 921, the Apex Court has held thus:
6
“Before parting with the judgment, with deep
concern, we may point out that though all
sexual assaults on female children are not
reported and do not come to light yet there is
an alarming and shocking increase of sexual
offences committed on children. This is due to
the reasons that children are ignorant of the act
of rape and are not able to offer resistance and
become easy prey for lusty brutes who display
the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of
luring female children and young girls.
Therefore, such offenders who are menace to
the civilized society should be mercilessly and
inexorably punished in the severest terms.”
10. In nutshell, it can be inferred that the juvenile who was found to be
aged below 14 years was found to have complicity in this frightful crime
on the date of the occurrence. The manner, in which, the crime was
committed and the nature thereof impels to draw a conclusion that in
case, the juvenile is released on bail, he shall fall of in the same
environs which most probably contributed towards his criminal bent of
mind.
11. It is a case where the revisionist, though below the age of 18
years, has committed the gruesome crime of carnal intercourse with the
minor victims, who are just 5 & 7 years old against the ordinary course
of nature and prepared the video and circulated the same. About the
factum of the incident, there is reasonable assurance at this stage, short
of the charge being tested at the trial. The prosecution is consistent in
the FIR lodged against him and the statements of the minor victims and
their mother before the Magistrate.
12. In view of the above, it is true that the merits of the case or prima
7
facie tenability of the charge, like an adult, is not entirely decisive to the
fate of the bail plea. At the same time, it is not altogether irrelevant. The
gravity of the charge, manner of its perpetration, circumstances in which
the offence is alleged to have been committed, its immediate impact on
the society at large and the locality, in particular, besides its impact on
the aggrieved family, are all matters to be taken into reckoning while
judging a juvenile’s bail plea. All these factors are relevant which
squarely attract and satisfy the last disentitling clause engrafted in
Proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, which predicates that the release of
the juvenile would occasion a “defeat of the ends of justice.”
13. In the case in hand, the revisionist by his action, if true, has put
the society and its surroundings on alarm. No doubt, the Juvenile
Justice Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the
juvenile/child in conflict with the law, but the law also demands that
justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser.”
His actions have led to a situation, where prima facie no child of tender
years, and more than that the parents or the guardians of a young child,
would feel safe during their daily routine, when there is nothing
otherwise to call extra caution. Therefore, such offenders who are
menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably
punished in the severest terms. Thus, the trial court has rightly found
him not at all entitled to bail.
14. For all the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that it is
not a fit case to grant bail to the juvenile-child in conflict with law. The
revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to
8
expedite the hearing and conclude the same at the earliest without
getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally
signed by
SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.08.14
11:17:21
+0530