Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:17280
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 380 of 2025
1 - Abc Nill
... applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, Korba, District Korba
(C.G.)
... Respondent
For applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Res/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
15.04.2025
1. pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2025, the father and grand-father of
the victim appeared through virtual mode from DLSA Korba and raised
objection in granting bail to the applicant. Their submissions are taken on
record.
2. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the
judgment dated 01.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025 by the
learned Upper Session Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act) Juvenile Court Korba,
2
District- Korba (C.G.), upholding the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Korba rejecting bail application of the
applicant in connection with Crime No. 344 of 2024 registered at Police
Station Pali, District Korba, for the offence punishable under Section
363,366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case is that on 11.12.2024, the victim has lodged
written report against the applicant before the Police Station Pali, District
Korba stating that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her
on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the
applicant for the offence stated above.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that all the applicant
admittedly is juvenile, aged about 17 years and 10 months. It is also
submitted that the victim was also of the similar age group. He further
submits that apart from this case, there is no criminal antecedent of the
present applicant. The applicant is in the observation home since
21.12.2024 and therefore he may be enlarged on bail taking into
consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for grant of bail. However, he fairly submits that social investigation report is
in favour of the applicant and present is first criminal case registered against
him.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the criminal revision as well as the case diary.
3
7. In the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this court in case of
Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 1 wherein in para -6,
this court has observed as under:
“The scope and object of provision regarding grant of bail to a
Juvenile as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act came up for
consideration before the Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Bharat @ Bhrat & Another (supra), wherein it was held that the
use of word “Shall” by the legislative provisions in the Section 12
of the Act is of great significance and which raises a presumption
that the particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest
that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the
Juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the Juvenile shall not
be so released in certain circumstances as latter part of the
Section also uses the word “Shall” imposing certain mandatory
conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the Board. It
has also been held that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to
the Juvenile and would be liable to be rejected only when it
appears to the Board that either of the three conditions
mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing.”
8. The said observations of the court was based upon the decisions
rendered in case of Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2 as
well as the judgment delivered by the MP High Court in case of Rahul
Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3.
9. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if
Section 12 (1) of the Act is of 2015 is taken into consideration, and for
ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder:
“Section 12: (1) When any person accused of a bailable or
non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or
detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the
time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety
[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under
the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so
released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that
the release is likely to bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends
of justice.”
1
2011 (1) CGLRW-140
2 2006 (1) CGLJ 305
3 2001 Cri.LJ 214
4
10. A plain reading of the said section by itself gives a clear indication that
under the normal circumstances as a matter of routine, in case an
accused person happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained and
is brought before the Board, such person notwithstanding anything
contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other
special law which is in force should be released on bail. But at the
same time the latter part of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 clearly
envisages the fact that in a given factual background of a case if it
appears to the Court that the releasing of the said juvenile can bring
him into the association of the company with which he landed himself
in the remand home or he may get exposed to moral and psychological
danger as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may
not be released.
11. In the present case, from perusal of the report of the Probation Officer
is based upon the fact that the conduct of the appellant is good and he
may assistance of his family members and nothing adverse has been
reported by the probation officer.
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that the applicant being a juvenile is already in
observation home since 21.12.2024; also considering the nature of
offence and the ratio of law led down in the matter of Dayasagar
Yadav @ Sagar (Supra) and also keeping in mind the fact that if the
applicant is released on bail, there is no chances of his coming into
association with known bad company which could further expose him
to moral as well as psychological danger, further it also appears that
there was no criminal motive or intention on the part of the applicant,
5
this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the applicant can be
released on bail.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order
dated 01.03.2025 is set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parent/guardian with
one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile
Justice Board for appearance of the applicant as and when directed,
the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
amita
Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY
Date: 2025.04.17 09:45:51 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link