Allowed

Abc v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2022CRR/599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court recalled its own decision regarding a juvenile applicant charged with narcotic offences involving seizure of Maxcoff syrup. The court set aside lower orders and directed release of the applicant on surety and bond to his natural guardian.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and Juvenile Justice Board set aside; applicant released on surety of Rs. 50,000 with bond.

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Custody and Guardianship | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 599 of 2022

¶5

¶6

---- Applicant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- State/Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶7

13.09.2022

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) and Children's Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant/juvenile against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) dated 27.01.2022 pertaining to Crime No. 1348/2021, registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 21 & 22 of N.D.P.S. Act, has been dismissed.

¶10

Case of the prosecution is that 28.11.2021 on secret information police seized 16 bottles containing 100 ml which of MAXCOFF Codeine Phosphate Syrup and two mobiles from the possession of the present juvenile/applicant and co-accused namely Manoj Koshle. The applicant was sent to Observation Home on 29.11.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only 16 bottles of Maxcoff Syrup were seized from the possession of the present applicant and same were handed over to him by co-accused and he had no knowledge that the articles are prohibited drugs. He further submits that in social status report of the applicant, there is no adverse remark against him. He is in observation

¶12

¶13

home since 29.11.2021 and the charge-sheet has been filed. Nothing adverse is mentioned against the applicant in the Social Investigation Report, despite that both the learned Courts below have rejected the bail applications of the juvenile, which is erroneous and against the law. It is further prayed that his revision petition may be allowed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that earlier three cases under the IPC were registered against the present applicant, but he fairly submits that under the N.D.P.S. Act no case is registered except the present one.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the both the parties, perused the case diary and material available on record.

¶16

Taking into consideration, the quantity of alleged Maxcoff syrup which is 16 bottles, period of detention from 29.11.2021, charge-sheet has already been filed and the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the children was handed over prohibited contraband by the co-accused, I am inclined to allow this revision petition.

¶17

Consequently, the revision is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T..C.) and Children's Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 84/2022 and order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) are set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a surety of Rs.50,000/- along with a bond of same amount which are to be of his natural guardian, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural guardian.

¶18

Certified copy as per rules.

¶19

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶20

vatti

Abc v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abc 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

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Das Vaishnav Vs Smt.Saroj Vaishnav and Another

Smt. Usha Gupta Vs Devi Prasad Gupta

Radheshyam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Fulmati Vs Injoriya Bai

Bhondu @ Barati Vs Bhangin Bai