Allowed

A v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2023CRR/18/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order allowed a criminal revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act, 2015, setting aside previous orders rejecting the juvenile applicant's bail. The High Court directed release on furnishing a surety to the Juvenile Justice Board.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision allowed; judgment/order below set aside; applicant released on furnishing surety of Rs. 50,000 to natural guardian.

A Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2023

---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sihawa, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- State/Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Government Advocate

¶10

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶11

06.03.2023

¶12

This revision petition is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2022, upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 133/2022 rejecting the bail application of the applicant filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in connection with Crime 144/2022 registered at Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 34 of IPC.

¶13

As per prosecution story, co-accused Lokesh Tonde had taken a loan of Rs.12,50,000/- to open a mobile shop from deceased Jyoti Prasad Sahu. There was continuous demand to refund the amount by the deceased, therefore, Lokesh Tonde inform this fact to the present applicant who arranged two co-accused persons namely Amar Singh and Pradeep. Further case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 01-02 September, 2022 co-accused namely Amar Singh and Pradeep committed murder of

¶14

¶15

Jyoti Prasad Sahu. In the memorandum statement of co-accused persons, the name of the present applicant has come. Report was lodged on 02.09.2022 and consequently, an F.I.R. was registered for the offence as mentioned above.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is a juvenile, he is in observation home since 03.12.2022, he is a student of B.A. First Year and he has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of memorandum statements of adult co-accused persons. Therefore, the criminal revision preferred by the present applicant may be allowed.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the present applicant is a person who managed two other co-accused persons who committed murder of Jyoti Prasad Sahu and thus present applicant is the main accused. He would pray for dismissal of the instant criminal revision.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as social status report.

¶19

From the case diary, it appears that a loan was taken by co-accused Lokesh Tonde from the deceased. Lokesh Tonde with an intention to avoid the refund of loan amount, entered into conspiracy to commit murder of Jyoti Prasad Sahu and he engaged the present applicant to make suitable arrangement. As per prosecution story, the present applicant sent two persons who are co-accused and they committed murder. Name of the present applicant has come in the memorandum statements of the coaccused persons. In social status report of the present applicant, it is stated by Probation Officer that the present applicant is a student of B.A. First Year and report is progressive. Considering the fact that the present applicant is in observation home since 03.12.2022, charge-sheet has been filed and further considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice

¶20

¶21

(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, I am inclined to allow this criminal revision.

¶22

Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed. The judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2022 and order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari (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/father/mother, 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/father/ mother.

¶23

Certified copy as per rules.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶26

vatti

A v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A 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

Mahendra Kumar Sinha Vs Mahesh Kumar Sinha

Chhotelal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mayashankar Yadav Vs Smt. Neelam Yadav

Yadurai Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhram Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh