Allowed

Juvenile-a v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 May 2022CRR/300/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitions filed by three juvenile applicants challenging the dismissal of their bail applications in cases of gang rape involving a minor victim. The High Court noted the age of the juveniles, lack of prior record, and potential impact on their development as grounds for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dismissing bail were set aside. The Juvenile Justice Board was directed to grant custody of the applicants to their natural guardians upon each furnishing a surety of Rs. 25,000 an

Juvenile-a Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 220 of 2022

¶4

•	Juvenile In Conflict With Law S/o Xyz ---- Applicant Versus
•	State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Sitapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent CRR No. 219 of 2022
•	Juvenile In Conflict With Law S/o X Y Z ---- Applicant
	Versus
•	State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
	---- Respondent
•	CRR No. 300 of 2022 Juvenile-A Nill ---- Applicant Versus
• -------	The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. (As Per Impugned Order) ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For A	pplicant (CRR 220/2022 and (CRR 219/2022 : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Adv.
For A	pplicant (CRR 300/2022) : Shri Punit Rupatel, PL
For n -------	on-applicant/State : Shri Amit Choudhari, PL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶5

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order on Board

¶6

9-5-2022

¶7

Since all the above three revisions pertain to same crime number of same police Station, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶8

Challenge in these revision petitions is to the order dated 24-1-2022 and 10-2-2022 passed by learned Children Court/ Uppar Sessions Judge, FTC, Special Court (POCSO Act), Sarguja, Ambikapur in CR.A. No. 2/2022 and Cr. A. No. 7/02022 whereby the appeals preferred by the applicants-juvenile against the order dated 14-1-2022 and 13-2-2022 relating to Crime No. 336/2021

¶9

¶10

registered at PS Seetapur, Sarguja has been dismissed, wherein the applicants were denied bail.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They are in observation home since 21-12-2021. It is also submitted that it is their first act in conflict with law and their more detention will affect their childish mentality. There is nothing in their social status report which may dis-entitle them to be released on bail. The learned Board as well as the learned appellate Court have dismissed the bail applications without considering the matter in proper perspective. Hence, the revisions be allowed and they be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the revision petitions and submits that both the Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders. He submits that it is a case of gang rape and also the applicants have injured the victim who is minor girl by biting her in various places of her body. Thus, the revisions may be rejected.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the documents placed on record and considered the submissions made by counsel for both the parties.

¶14

Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, 2 applicants are said to be boys of 12 and 13 years and the other one is aged about 17 years. They are in observation home since 21-12-2021. As per the case diary, there is no other criminal case registered against them. There is nothing in the social status report

¶15

¶16

of the applicants, which may be a ground for denial of the bail to the applicants.

¶17

Consequently, the revisions are allowed. The order dated 24-1-2022 passed in Cr.A. No. 2/2022 and order dated 10-2-2022 passed in 7/2022 by the Children Court/Upper Sessions Judge (FTC) Special Court (POCSO Act) Sarguja Ambikapur are set aside. It is directed that on each of the applicant furnishing a surety of Rs. 25,000/- along with a bond of same amount which is to be of their natural guardian/father/mother, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for their appearance as and when directed, then the applicants shall be given in custody of their natural guardian/mother/father.

¶18

One closed envelops has been submitted in each case by counsel for the applicants-juvenile along with memo of revision, which contains particulars of the applicants-juvenile. Respective envelope shall be made part of the record of the order.

¶19

Certified copy as per rules.

¶20

Sd/(NK Chandravanshi) Judge

¶21

Pathak/-

Juvenile-a v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile-a v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siraj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santkumar Patel Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Suklal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh