Allowed

Saroj Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Apr 2019CRR/334/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision by the Juvenile offender challenging the dismissal of his bail application. The court ordered release on bail based on the social investigation report indicating no danger of contact with known criminals.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing two local sureties each of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfied Juvenile Justice Board.

Saroj Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2019

¶5

Saroj Kumar S/o Shri Mehilal, aged about 17 years R/o Village Smra, P.S. Pondi, District Koriya (C.G.), represented by his natural Guardian (Father), Shri Mehilal S/o Shri Sukhnandan, aged about 65 years R/o Village Semra, P.S. Pondi, District Koriya (C.G.).

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station House Officer, Police Station Sonhat, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. D.P. Singh, Dy. Advocate General

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

04/04/2019

¶14

This revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015) against judgment dated 19/02/2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2019 by the Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, whereby the Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 15/11/2018 dismissing his bail application passed in Criminal Case No. 30/2018 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur.

¶15

As per prosecution story, Complainant Devprasad lodged a report stating therein that on 12/02/2018, the Applicant had taken his daughter along with him. It is alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the Applicant committed sexual intercourse with the Prosecutrix. During investigation, the

¶16

¶17

Prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the Applicant. Her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C was recorded. The Applicant has been taken into custody on 16/02/2018. He filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 for grant of bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the Applicant is juvenile aged about 17 years who is in custody since 16/02/2018 and the social investigation report does not suggest that on his release, he will come in contact with any known criminal or there would be danger to his psychological and physical state of mind. Therefore, he may be extended the benefit of bail.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supported the impugned judgment.

¶20

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the social investigation report and other material available on record.

¶21

Considering the nature of allegation, facts of the case and the fact that the Applicant is in observation home since 16/02/2018 and social investigation report does not suggest that on his release, he will come in contact with any known criminal or there would be danger to his psychological and physical state of mind, I am inclined to allow this revision and release the Applicant on bail.

¶22

Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment dated

¶23

¶24

19/02/2019 is set-aside. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing two local sureties each of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board as and when directed by the said Board.

¶25

Sd/(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶26

Rahul

Saroj Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitish Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar & Ors. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Prasad Mishra Vs Smt. Sharda Mishra and Anr.

Harsh Kesharwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sheikh Munawwar Hussain Vs State of Chhattisgarh