Allowed

X Y Z v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Apr 2022CRR/64/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision under Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, setting aside orders rejecting bail. Court held rejection illegal due to failure to record reasons and absence of statutory grounds justifying denial of bail to a juvenile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; application allowed; applicant directed to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond to satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board.

X Y Z Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.R. No. 64 of 2022

¶5

X Y Z Nil

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant: Shri D. K. Vishwakarma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

13.04.2022

¶14

This Criminal revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of minor), Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2015') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.198/2021, whereby, the learned appellate Court, while upholding the order dated 25.11.2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), has rejected the application filed by the Applicant under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in connection with the Crime No.512/2021 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Komal Sahu @Lalu Sahu was the brother of the complainant, namely, Birendra Sahu. On 22.08.2021, Komal Sahu did not come back to his house and on the next day,

¶16

¶17

i.e., on 23.08.2021, his brother Birendra Sahu, the complainant, was informed by one person that his brother was found lying dead near the house of Pukhraj Singh and unknown person killed and threw him. The Complainant after having received the information about the death of his brother went to Police Station and lodged the report. On the basis of which, the concerned police conducted investigation and after investigation, offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act have been registered and the charge sheet has been filed accordingly against the present Applicant.

¶18

An application as per the provision prescribed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 was filed by the Applicant praying for his release on bail in connection with the said crime. After considering the said application, the concerned Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 25.11.2021 has rejected the same by holding that the release of the Applicant would defeat the ends of justice.

¶19

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the Applicant under Section 101 of the Act, 2015 before the concerned appellate Court, who, in turn, vide its order dated 14.12.2021 upheld the aforesaid order and observed that in case the Applicant is released on bail, it would then defeat the ends of justice and accordingly the appeal was dismissed, which has been impugned by way of this petition.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, while assailing the correctness and validity of the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed in appeal by the appellate Court, contended that rejection of the application for grant of bail is wholly illegal. It is contended further while referring to the provision prescribed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 that ordinarily the bail application is to be allowed and the statutory mandate not to release him would operate only when there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release of him is likely to bring him into

¶21

¶22

association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is contended further that in absence of any of the grounds provided under proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015, an application ought not to have been rejected by the Court below. It is contended further, while referring to the Social Investigation Report of the concerned Probation Officer, that if the Applicant is released on bail, he would not come in contact with known criminals, therefore, the Applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that while rejecting the Applicant's application filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015, no illegality has been committed by the Courts below as it was opined based upon the materials that on account of the release of the Applicant, it would defeat the ends of justice and, as such there is no illegality in the order impugned as passed by the learned appellate Court while affirming the order of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.

¶24

From perusal of the provision prescribed under Section 12 of the Act, 2015, it is evident that ordinarily, the bail application of a juvenile is to be allowed and has to be rejected only on the ground as specified in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of Act, 2015. Although, the Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 25.11.2021 has rejected the said application by holding that the release of the Applicant would defeat the ends of justice, however, no reasons whatsoever has been assigned in this regard, which is required to be made mandatorily under the said proviso to Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The order so passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed by the appellate Court, but the appellate Court has also failed to record any reason in this regard as well.

¶25

Be that as it may, a social investigation report was submitted by the concerned Probation Officer on 06.10.2021 and a bare perusal of it would show that if the Applicant is released on bail, he would not come with known

¶26

¶27

criminals. It is, thus, evident that the release of the Applicant on bail would not bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat with the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application filed under Section 12 of Act, 2015. The Courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid background, the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court on 14.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.198/2021 upholding the order dated 25.11.2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal Case No.569/2021 are hereby set aside.

¶29

Consequently, the application filed by the Applicant under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 is hereby allowed. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/by the parents or guardians of the Applicant, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before it, as and when directed.

¶30

The revision is accordingly allowed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶33

Nikita

X Y Z v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Y Z 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

Heera Bai Vs Girish Lahanuji Kotrange

Azij Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Kumar Patel Vs Ashok Nirmalkar

Hari Prasad Yadav Vs Dr. H.P. Khairwar

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Raipal @ Rahipal Mandavi

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Puja Adhikari