Allowed

X v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2022CRR/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 102, the High Court allowed the bail application of a juvenile accused of attempt to murder. The Court quashed lower court orders, citing failure to appreciate probation officer reports and noting the absence of specific circumstances under Section 12 warranting bail rejection.

What did the court decide?

Orders of rejection by the Board and Sessions Court set aside; juvenile granted custody of natural guardian upon furnishing two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each.

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

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 85 of 2022

¶5

X Nill

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Urga, DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate

¶10

For Respondent/State : Shri C.B. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board

¶12

01.02.2022

¶13

1. Heard on admission.

¶14

1. The application is admitted for hearing.

¶15

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶16

1. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 2015) is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 82/2021, upholding the order dated 10.11.2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 549/2021 registered at Police Station Urga, Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

1. Allegation against the present applicant/juvenile is that on 31.10.2021 he alongwith other co-accused persons reached at

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

village Dadarkla at about 11.00 pm, where the dance competition was on. At this time, the applicant with co-accused person with intention to kill the victim Durgesh Singh Kanwar assaulted him with knife on his vital part stomach, head & back repeatedly. The complainant intervened at that time, he too assaulted by them and sustained injuries on his left hand's finger. On report being lodged to the above effect the aforesaid offence has been registered and the accused persons were arrested.

¶20

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/juvenile is an innocent boy and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not inflicted any injury to the complainant and victim person. The Courts below have not properly appreciatted the social status report of the Probation Officer. Therefore, the applicant/juvenile be released on bail.

¶21

1. On the other hand learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment.

¶22

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

¶23

1. In the social status reports of the applicant, no specific circumstances, which are required to be present for rejecting the bail application as contained in the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act are found. There is also no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant. As per social status report the education of the applicant is incomplete and he is required to resume the same. To decide the bail application of the applicant juvenile, only nature and gravity of the offence is not to be taken into consideration. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Board as well as the Appellate Court, both have committed error by not properly appreciating the reports of the Probation officer. Therefore, the orders of rejection passed by the Board as well as the Appellate Court are erroneous and need interference.

¶24

1. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed.

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

11)The impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside. It is directed that on furnishing two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each, one of which is to be of the natural guardian of the juvenile, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance as and when required before Juvenile Justice Board or Child Court, the applicant-juvenile shall be given in custody of his natural guardian.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

¶29

Nadim

X v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X 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

Ravindra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Babbu Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Kumeti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhay Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobhran Singh Mar Vs State of Chhattisgarh