[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025:CGHC:29959
2025.07.07
14:11:30
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 960 of 2024
1 - XYZ (Juvenile Conflict With Law Observation Home/custody).
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer
Gunderdehi, P.S. Gunderdehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
02/07/2025
1. The present Revision petition 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 14.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC) &
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Balod, District-Balod C.G. in
Criminal Appeal No. 41/2024, upholding the order dated
22.05.2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) rejecting the bail
2
application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.
110/2024 registered at Police Station Gunderdehi, District –
Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363,
376(2)(N), 376(3) of IPC and Section 4, 5(T), 6 of POCSO Act (as
per charge sheet).
2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant (victim’s
mother) lodged a written report to the concerned police station
stating that she works as a daily wage lobourer and her
daughter/victim aged about 15 years, studying in Class 10th,
suddenly fell ill and she took her to relative’s house in Durg for
treatment and there, the victim told them that the applicant
forcefully took her near the village pond and on pretext of
marriage, committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which
her daughter/victim has become 07 months pregnant. Based on
this, 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 in the case. He submits that the applicant is about
16 years 05 months old, he is in the observation home since
05.05.2024. There is no likelihood that his release would bring
him into association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger. The learned Court
below have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering
the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released
on bail. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Juvenile in Conflict with Law V vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Anr., passed in Special Leave
3
Petiton (Crl.) No. 9566 of 2024 on 14.08.2024.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
prayer for the grant of bail and submits that at the time of
incident, the victim was aged about 15 years, who became 07
months pregnant. 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 16 years 05 months.
5. On 11.11.2024, victim along with her mother appeared virtually
from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection in granting
bail to the applicant.
6. 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 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.
7. Be that as it may, a social status report dated 27.11.2024 was
submitted by the concerned Probation Officer and a bare
perusal of it would show that the conduct of the applicant is not
only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child’s
education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the
child with education. 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
4
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. The Courts below have, therefore,
committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the
mandate of the Act, 2015.
8. Accordingly, the orders passed by the 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 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.
9. 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
Sourabh P.
[ad_2]
Source link