Allowed

Abc v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2024CRR/115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A juvenile accused in a POCSO/IPC 376 case sought bail after rejection by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate Court. The High Court found the lower orders lacked any basis to invoke Section 12 exceptions, relied on a favourable social investigation report, set them aside, and directed release into paternal custody on bond.

What did the court decide?

Juvenile's release ordered: Rs.25,000 personal bond by father plus like surety; custody to father with duty to produce him before the Board and prevent association with criminals or repeat offence.

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 115 of 2024

¶5

1- ABC

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Urla, Distt. - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Shrivastava, Dy.G.A.

¶11

SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

08/04/2024

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.14/2024 filed against the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (for short 'the Board') by which application for grant of bail to applicant in connection with Crime No.397/2023 registered at Police Station – Urla, District Raipur for the offence under Section 376 (a) (b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶15

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.10.2023 a written

¶16

¶17

complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging that applicant and his family are residing in her house as tenant. It is alleged that she was informed by her daughter that on 05.10.2023 at about 7.00 PM applicant took her daughter to his room, closed the door and thereafter committed physical assault upon her daughter, who is 6 years of age. On the basis of the complaint made, crime was registered. During investigation applicant was taken into custody on 08.10.2023. He filed bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before the Board which came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2024 against which criminal appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order impugned.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who is juvenile in conflict with law is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. There is no material on record to connect the present applicant in commission of alleged offence. FIR was lodged at belated stage. Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. The learned Courts below have dismissed the bail application only looking to the gravity of the offence as also his release would expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and his release will defeat the ends of justice. He submits that there is nothing on record to show that if juvenile is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any known

¶19

¶20

criminal, or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release will defeat the ends of justice. The Board as well as appellate Court have not properly appreciated the contents of the social investigation report and have passed impugned orders in a cursory manner without considering the object of the law enacted for the benefit of a Juvenile and have refused to release the applicant on bail. Applicant is in observation home since 08.10.2023 and further custody of applicant in the observation home may adversely affect his mental status and may ruin his future. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that release of applicant is likely to expose him to moral or psychological danger and as such, his bail application has rightly been rejected by the Board and the appellate Court. Hence, present criminal revision filed on behalf of juvenile be dismissed.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the documents filed along with criminal revision as also social investigation report placed before this Court by State counsel.

¶23

The provision of bail for juvenile is provided under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which reads as under:

¶24

“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child

¶25

¶26

alleged to be in conflict with law- (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

¶27

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. ”

¶28

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home [or a place of safety, as the case may be,] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

¶29

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person,

¶30

¶31

as may be specified in the order.

¶32

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfill the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. ”

¶33

A bare reading of above quoted provision would show that a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, except in three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015 itself. These three situations are: (i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (ii) the release will expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger and; (iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶34

Social investigation report of applicant/juvenile, is available in the case diary. In the social investigation report of applicant it is recorded that relations of applicant with his family members, with his friends and neighbourer is friendly/cordial. He has passed Class-7th. He was working as Office Assistant in private institution. Applicant is not addicted to any kind of intoxicants. He is interested in watching films. It is also mentioned in the report that mental and physical condition of juvenile is good. No criminal antecedent of applicant is shown.

¶35

¶36

His company is not shown with any criminals. Nothing adverse has been reported in respect of habit of applicant or that release of applicant would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger or he would come in association of known criminals. The Probation Officer opined that providing family protection appears to be in the best interest of juvenile.

¶37

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the reason for denying concession of bail to the applicant is the gravity of offence and apprehension that his release would expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, and his release will defeat the ends of justice. However, the Court below has not mentioned in the impugned order as to what was the basis for recording a finding that moral, physical and psychological danger is possible to the applicant. There is no discussion of this aspect in the impugned order. In absence of any justification, there is failure of the Board as also the appellate Court, to take into consideration the exceptions given under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 on which bail can be denied to a juvenile. For the above discussions I am of the considered view that learned Appellate Court and Juvenile Justice Board erred in rejecting the appeal as also the application seeking bail. The orders are not sustainable in law.

¶38

Therefore, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court and the Board are hereby set-aside. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in

¶39

¶40

the sum of Rs.25,000/- by his father, with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, the custody of applicant shall be given to his father. It shall be duty of the father of applicant to produce him before the Justice Board as and when directed. He shall take proper care of the applicant and will not allow him to fall into association of any person of criminal background. He shall ensure that the applicant will not repeat the offence of like nature in future.

¶41

Certified copy as per rules.

¶42

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶43

Balram

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

Shahrukh Khan @ S.K. Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nabeel Kola Parambath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Rustam Ali @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohit Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikeshwar Sahu @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh