Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:30278
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 656 of 2025
Xyz Nil
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
03/07/2025
1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the
impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile
Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO
Act), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2025
upholding the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) whereby the bail
application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 43 of 2025
registered at Police Station Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the
2
offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(e), 70(2), 71, 3(5) of BNS and
Section 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012(in short “POCSO Act, 2012“) was rejected.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the mother of the victim lodged a
written report in the Police Station Darima on 23.03.2025 alleging that
her minor daughter, stays in the house of Doctor Soni, who is her
relative at village in Badedamali. There she studies and does
household work. On the next day of Holi, the wife of Doctor Soni from
village Badedamali called her and told that her daughter/victim has
been secretly leaving the house every day for the last 4-5 nights
without informing anyone and returns home after 2-3 hours at night.
She suspects that some boys come to pick her up at night with whom
the victim goes somewhere secretly at night without informing anyone.
Then the mother of the victim went to village Badedamali at the house
of Dr. Soni to pick up her daughter/victim. Where her daughter/victim
told her about the incident that she likes the present applicant and
before 4 to 5 days of Holi, he(present applicant) came to pick her up at
night and had physical relations with her and after some time in the
night, two friends of the present applicant namely- Surendra Singh
(Monu) and Yashwant Singh (Chhotu) also came inside the room and
had physical relations with her one by one and threatened to defame
her in the entire village and kill her if she will tell anyone about the
incident. Due to this fear, she used to leave the house secretly at night
on the call of the present applicant and his friends for 4-5 days
continuously and all three of them used to have physical relations with
her one by one. On the said complaint lodged by the mother/applicant
of the victim, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the
3
present applicant alonwith other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated and no antecedents have been
reported against the applicant. There is no likelihood of his release
would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose
him to moral, physical or psychological danger. He further submits that
the applicant is in Observation Home since 24.03.2025 and staying
there for more period will adversely affect his childish mentality. Both
the learned Courts have in mechanical manner rejected the bail.
Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be
released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for grant of bail and submits that in the present case the applicant
alongwith his two friends who are major committed the offence of rape
continuously for about 4 to 5 days and also threatened the minor victim
to defame her in the entire village and kill her, if she will tell anyone
about the incident He is aged about 17 years. There were total 3
accused persons involved in the crime in question i.e. one is the
present applicant whereas other two co-accused persons are major
and they are also in jail. Hence, looking to the nature of the crime
committed by the applicant, at this stage, he may not be released on
bail.
5. Victim herself has appeared before this Court through Video
Conferencing from D.L.S.A., Sarguja. She has raised no objection in
allowing the bail application filed by the applicant.
6. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a child
4
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. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile
Justice Board on the ground that the present applicant took the victim
to an deserted house at night and alongwith two major friends made
physical relation with her one by one for about 4 to 5 days and also
threatened the minor victim to defame her in the entire village and kill
her if she will tell anyone about the incident therefore, in case the
applicant is released on bail it is likely to bring him into association with
known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological
danger.
8. The Appellate Court also rejected the applicant’s appeal on the ground
that as per the report submitted by Probation Officer, prima facie it is
established that applicant/ juvenile committed gang rape with the
victim/prosecutrix, below 16 years of age, alongwith two other co-
accused persons. In such a situation, as the crime committed against
the applicant / juvenile is of serious nature, therefore, learned
appellate Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in affirming
the order passed by the trial Court while rejecting the bail application
filed by the applicant.
9. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the
5
facts & circumstances of the case, I note that the prosecution relies on
report submitted by Probation Officer, according to which prima facie it
is established that applicant/ juvenile committed gang rape with the
victim/prosecutrix, below 16 years of age, alongwith two other co-
accused persons. Given the involvement of other co-accused persons,
who are major and is currently in jail, granting bail to the juvenile
would result in lack of proper care and protection, further the trial has
yet to commence, I conclude that granting bail to the applicant would
likely expose him to moral and psychological risks and compromise the
interests of justice. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere
with the reasoned findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as
well as Appellate Court.
10. Consequently, this criminal revision, being devoid of substance, is liable
to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s).
11. Considering the age of the applicant and the nature of the crime, the
Juvenile Justice Board should consider under Section 15 of The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
amita
Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY
AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.08 12:25:28 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link