Chattisgarh High Court
Juvenile In Conflict With Law vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:10621
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1427 of 2024
1 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law Through Natural Guardian Father
(Details Of The Applicant Is Provided In An Envelope In Compliance Of
Section 74 Of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children)
Act, 2015
2 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law Through Natural Guardian Father
(Details Of The Applicant Is Provided In An Envelope In Compliance Of
Section 74 Of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children)
Act, 2015)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Amanaka, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Hemant Kesarwani, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
04/03/2025
The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short
2
‘the Act 2015’) against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.380/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC ),
Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the
appeal arising out of order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Criminal Case
No. 294/2024 by the Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur
dismissing the bail application of the applicants/juveniles.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused, who are
juveniles. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.05.2024,
information has been recieved at police station that dead body of
unknown person was found at J.P.Garden, near the culvert, Tatiband
and after merg inquiry, the deceased was identified as Kalyan Yadav @
Lallu, resident of Kushalpur, Goverdhan Chowk, Raipuyr. After
postmortem examination, the doctor has opined that deceased died on
account of injury on the head and that the death was homicidal in nature
and report was lodged against unknown person under Section 302 IPC.
During investigation, it was known that there was some dispute between
the in-laws of the deceased and he was residing separately. It is
alleged that son of the sister-in-law of the deceased and son of the
deceased with the help of Suraj Choudhary @ Macchi and Lavpreet
Singh @ Lala Sakinan, Khursipar Bhilai after hatching conspiracy and
paying ransom, committed the murder of Kalyan Yadav and threw the
dead body in the culvert (naala). The weapon of offence-knife, one
chunk of cement grit the vehicle used in the commission of the offence
were seized from different places. On the basis of the said report,
Crime No. 126/2024 was registered at police station Amanaaka under
Section 302 IPC and FIR was registered. Memorandum statements of
the juveiles were recorded and they were arrested. Thereafter, Section
3
120-B/34 was added. 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 14.10.2024 by giving a finding
that the offence was grievous in nature and were sent to the observation
home. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was
also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case. Orders passed by both the Courts
below are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits that in
view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the
applicants deserve to be released on bail. The applicants are in custody
since 29.05.2024 and therefore, they may be extended benefit of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State 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
4
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 delinquency of a child in conflict with
law.
7. It might be true that both the Courts have not undertaken a careful
exercise by evaluating the social investigation report while forming their
opinion on the first of the two dis-entitling parameters under the proviso
to Section 12(1) of the Act, that is to say, the prospect of release
bringing the child in conflict with into association with some known
criminal or exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger. But,
that does not end the matter. It is a case where the revisionist, though
below the age of 18 years, have committed the murder of the deceased
who is the father and uncle of the applicants after giving ransom to the
other co-accused juveniles.
8. In the present case, it is true that the merits of the case or prima
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 and not so
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 under the last dis-entitling clause postulated under the proviso
5
to Section 12(1) of the Act, which says that release of the juvenile would
”defeat the ends of justice’. After all ”defeat the ends of justice’ is not a
word of art. It has been thoughtfully introduced by the legislature to arm
the Court with a right to overcome an otherwise absolute right to bail,
where in the totality of the circumstances, release on bail would
adversely impact the law and order and the equilibrium of an ordered
society.
9. On perusal of the record including the social status report, 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 are
great chances that they will again come under the influence of other
accused persons. In the case in hand it shows that the revisionists by
their action, if true, has put the society and its surroundings on alarm. In
the opinion of this Court, it is a case where release of the children in
conflict with law would lead to ends of justice being defeated.
10. In view of above, looking to the age of the juveniles who are aged
about 16 years, had committed the murder of their uncle and father by
giving contract to kill, it cannot be said that the revisionists were
unaware of the act which they are doing and consequences thereof.
That being so, a minor may not be a circumstance in favour of the
revisionists for grant of bail. Thus, in the considered opinion of this
Court, releasing the applicants on bail would defeat the ends of justice
and therefore no case for bail in favour of the revisionists is made out.
9. Consequently, the revision fails and is herby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.03.05
16:37:53 +0530