Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:10422
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 676 of 2024
1 - Abc Nill
2 - Xyz (Details Is Kept In Envelop)
--- Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Janjgir, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.GA
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
03/03/2025
This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as “J.J. Act“) against the order impugned dated
06.06.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2024 arising out of Crime
No.17/2024 for commission of offences under Sections 363,302,201,
120-B, 147,148 and 149 of IPC whereby appeal has been dismissed
2
and the order dated 24.04.2024, passed by the Principal Magistrate
Juvenile Justice Board, Janjgir in Cr. Case No. 62/2024 rejecting the
bail application of child in conflict with law has been affirmed.
2. As per prosecution case, on 09.01.2024, at about 12.30 p.m.
complainant Mukund Yadav lodged a missing report alleging that his
son namely Rajesh Yadav, student of class 11 went with one Deepak
Tandon in his motorcycle to watch the cultural program at Godna and
did not return. He was having suspicion that his son might have been
abducted and therefore the report was lodged against unknown
persons under Section 363 IPC. Thereafter on 12.01.2024, at about
10.00 pm. dead body of the his son was found near Barbhata canal.
During merg inquiry, the police collected the evidence against the
present applicants/juvenile in conflict with law that the applicants were
classmates of the deceased and the applicant No.1 and the deceased
over liking their schoolmate (girl). Memorandum statements of the
juvenile in conflict with law were recorded and the clothes and weapon
of offence were seized. The juveniles were found to be 17 years and 11
months and 16 years of age, respectively.
3. An application for bail to the juveniles under Section 12 of the Act
was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board but same was declined.
Thereafter, an appeal preferred on behalf of the juvenile was also
dismissed. Learned Sessions Judge has taken into account the facts
that their release is likely to bring them into association with known
criminal, expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger and
would defeat the ends of justice.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants/juvenile in conflict with law
has submitted that at the time of commission of offence, juveniles were
3
below 18 years of age and they have no criminal antecedents. They
have been falsely implicated without any material evidence. It is further
submitted that there is no evidence on record that if the juveniles are
released on bail, their release is likely to bring them into association
with any known criminal, expose them to moral, physical or
psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. No such
findings has been recorded as to how they will come into association
with any known criminal, or how it will expose them to moral, physical
or psychological danger and would defeat the ends of justice. The
father of applicant No.1 is ready to give an undertaking that if juvenile is
released on bail he will keep him in his custody and will look after him
properly by providing better education. So far as applicant No.2 is
concerned, his father has died, he is a regular student of class 11 and
the brother of the applicant is ready to take the custody and the further
submitted that Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate Court have
not properly appreciated the facts of the case and have passed the
impugned order in a cursory manner without considering the object of
the law enacted for the benefit of juvenile and have refused to release
them on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate
Court and has contended that that the juveniles had committed a
heinous offence in a pre-planned manner as after committing double
murder ie. of Rajesh and Deepak with iron pipe and rod, they threw
threw the dead bodies in the pit and covered with straw, the motorcycle
was thrown in the pond near Mudhpar Road whereas the weapon of
offence iron rod and pipe were hidden in the room on the basis of
4
disclosure of the fact by the juveniles in conflict with law. They had
committed the murder only because of the dispute with regard to liking
of their schoolmate (girl) who was their classmate which shows their
depravity of mind. Therefore, considering the gravity of offence and
Social Investigation Report filed by the Probationary Officer the criminal
revision filed on behalf of the juveniles be dismissed.
6. I have heard the rival submissions put forth by learned counsel
for the parties.
7. It is undisputed that at the time of commission of offence,
juveniles in conflict with law were 17 years and 11 months and 16 years
of age respectively. Learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned
Sessions have taken into consideration the ghastly and abominable
crime committed by the juvenile. They have also taken note of the
report of the Probationary Officer.
8. It is true that gravity of the offence alone cannot be a ground to
reject the bail application but where the helpless children of 16 years
age are murdered only because of liking a schoolmate (girl), the
depravity of mind of the juveniles are very much manifest. Before
considering the legality, propriety, correctness and validity of the order
passed by the Courts below it would be useful to look at the relevant
provision of the Act. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 reads as under:-
“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child
alleged to be in conflict with law.-
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child
and is alleged to have committed a bailable or
non-bailable offence, is apprehended or
detained by the police or appears or brought
before a Board, such person shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
5of 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 person:
Provided that such person shall not be so
released if there appears reasonable grounds
for believing that the release is likely to bring
that person into association with any known
criminal or expose the said person to moral,
physical or psychological danger or the person’s
release would defeat the ends of justice, and
the Board shall record the reasons for denying
the bail and circumstances that led to such a
decision.
(2) When such person having been
apprehended is not released on bail under sub-
section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police
station, such officer shall cause the person to
be kept only in an observation home in such
manner as may be prescribed until the person
can brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall
make an order sending him to an observation
home or a place of safety, as the case may be,
for such period during the pendency of the
inquiry regarding the person, as may be
specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to
fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven
days of the bail order, such child shall be
produced before the Board for modification of
the conditions of bail.”
9. Provisions of Section 12 of “J.J. Act, 2015” manifest that
ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the
juvenile on bail with or without surety. The juvenile shall not be released
in certain circumstances as the latter part of the section also uses the
word ‘shall’ imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the
release of the juvenile by the J.J. Board. If there are any reasonable
grounds for believing;(a) that the release is likely to bring him into
6
association with any known criminal; (b) that release is likely to expose
him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and (c) that release of
the juvenile in conflict with law would defeat the ends of justice.
10. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of “J.J. Act,
2015“, it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to
the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to
have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in
such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
release is likely to bring the juvenile into an association of any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or
that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the
offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the
juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the
three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of “J.J.Act, 2015” is
available.
11. On a bare perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that bail to
juvenile is not “must” in all cases as it can be denied by assigning
proper reasons. The law does not say that once a person is found
juvenile, he should be released on bail notwithstanding the other facts
and circumstances of the matter. It is also explicit that the bail can also
be denied if the juvenile’s release, in the opinion of the court, would
defeat the ends of justice. The phrase “ends of justice” is undoubtedly a
meaningful phrase bringing within its sweep many factors including the
nature of the crime and the merits of the matter. Normally, in a case of
juvenile, the gravity of the offence or nature of accusation are not so
material. However, there may be some other facts and circumstances
which cannot simply be brushed aside by the court.
7
12. As far as nature of the offence is concerned, the Act itself
differentiates between offences falling into three categories, i.e petty,
serious and heinous offences. Time and again, the Supreme Court has
cautioned the courts through various judgments to be more sensitive
while dealing the matter of heinous offences. However, the general
principles as enumerated in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
have to be kept in mind as a guiding factor. On one hand, all decisions
regarding the child should be based on primary consideration of best
interest of the child, on the other hand, the demands of justice of the
other side cannot be simply shrugged off. In fact, Society has always
been sensitive towards offences against the innocent children.
Therefore, while considering the prayer for bail in cases related to
murder, the Court has to see whether release would not expose
juvenile to the danger of retribution by the Society. In cases of murder,
such a possibility always exists. Where victim is a child, the court would
do well in its limit to refuse to exercise discretion vested under Section
12 of the Act and bail can also be refused on the ground that release
would defeat the ends of justice.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of
Rajasthan and another [(2012) 5 SCC 201], has cautioned the courts
to be more sensitive in dealing with juvenile in cases of serious nature
like sexual molestation, rape, gang-rape murder etc. Relevant extract of
the judgment made in Paras- 23 and 38 are being reproduced below for
reference:-
“23. Hence, while the courts must be sensitive in
dealing with the juvenile who is involved in cases
of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape,
gang rape, murder and host of other offences, the
accused cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory
8protection by attempting to prove himself as a
minor …….”
In para-38 of the judgment, Hon’ble Court
observed that this would clearly be treated as an
effort to weaken the justice dispensation system.
Para-38 of the judgment is being reproduced
below:-
“38. The Juvenile Justice Act which is certainly
meant to treat a child accused with care and
sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and
settle into the mainstream of society, the same
cannot be allowed to be used as a ploy to dupe
the course of justice while conducting trial and
treatment of heinous offences. This would clearly
be treated as an effort to weaken the justice
dispensation system and hence cannot be
encouraged.”
In para-33 of the judgment, Court observed
that ‘statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice
Act is meant for minors who are innocent law-
breakers and not accused of matured mind who
use the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to
protect himself from the sentence of the offence
committed by him, otherwise would amount to
subverting the course of justice’.
14. The present is a case of double murder being committed by the
applicants/juveniles in conflict with law over some dispute of their
schoolmate (girl) which shows the depravity of the mind of the persons
committing such offence. The commission of murder of two persons
and thereafter trying to destroy the evidence by throwing the vehicle in
the pond and hiding the bodies in a pit by covering with straw, cannot
be treated to be an act, which can be dubbed as a child’s mistake
committed during youth or adolescence. It is an act motivated with
passion over petty issue of liking and disliking of their schoolmate (girl).
Where a 16 years old boys were abducted and assaulted with iron rod
and pipe on their head, shows the cruel mentality of the juvenile in
conflict with law. While considering bail to a juvenile in conflict with law,
9
gravity of offence cannot be considered but at the same time it cannot
be overlooked that discretion of bail to such persons will obviously
tantamount subverting the course of justice.
15. The double murder of two boys aged 16 years reflects the
criminal mind set of the offender. Granting bail to such juveniles will not
only expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger but will
also lead to defend the ends of justice. The object of Juvenile Justice
Act is not only reformatory but is retributive also to some extent. While
dealing with grant or refusal of bail the ends of justice compel the Court
to strike a balance between conflicting demands of justice of both the
sides i.e. the accused and the victim. The aim and object of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is to achieve not only the welfare and
betterment of juvenile by extending to him services of reformatory
nature, so that he can be brought back to main stream of society as a
person of healthy mind, but also to address the concern of society at
large.
16. After all the victims also needs justice. The Juvenile Justice Act
has been enacted for the need and care of juveniles. Therefore, a
striking balances is necessary while considering the matter of bail of a
juvenile from the angle of best interest of the child, demands of justice
to the victims and the concern of the society at large. Offences of
murder, rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault are crime against
society and society feeling desperate and outrage too needs a justice.
Thus, justice has to be ensured to both authors vis-a-vis victim and
society. Section 12 of the Act while empowers Court to grant bail to
juvenile but the act also puts a rider which is caused in negative.
17. In the present case, two minor boys aged 16 years were
10
murdered. The juveniles in conflict with law themselves had given their
statement and the dead bodies of the deceased children were
recovered on the basis of disclosure of the facts by the juveniles in
conflict with law. Therefore, I am of the view that aim of the Juvenile
Justice Act is to take care of both child in conflict with law as well as the
society. As such, Section 12 of the Act cannot be interpreted in a
manner so as to give advantage to only juvenile in conflict with law
ignoring the concern of the society. The provisions of bail for juvenile
cannot be interpreted to work only for the benefit of the juvenile ignoring
the cries of the family of the deceased children. Whenever a child
becomes victim of offences, let alone heinous offence like
rape/aggravated penetrative sexual assault, murder, society craves and
cries for justice. By showing misplaced sympathy to the juveniles, who
committed double murder, the society is denied justice which is not and
cannot be intention of law.
18. In view of above, juveniles in conflict with law are not entitled to
bail for commission of aforesaid offence. Consequently, I am of the view
that learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in rejecting
the appeal and in affirming the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board.
There is no error in the impugned order. Consequently, this criminal
revision is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Digitally signed
Judge
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.03.07
17:46:14 +0530