This revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015') is filed against the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court (POCSO), Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon in Criminal Appeal No.146/2023 filed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Board') by which application for grant of bail to applicant in connection with Crime No.109/2023 registered at Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon for the offences under Section 294, 323, 327, 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act was rejected.

¶15

¶16

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that a report was lodged by complainant -Shahnawaj Khan alleging that victim - Tarjan Sinha is working in his tyre shop. On 08.04.2023 at about 4 to 4.30 AM, when victim – Tarjan Sinha was sleeping in his shop, applicant came there and abused the victim with filthy languages, asked money for drinking liquor by brandishing long knife, threatened to kill him and slapped him. Based on the aforementioned report, FIR was registered against applicant and he was arrested and sent to observation home. After his arrest, applicant filed bail application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before the Board which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2023 against which criminal appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed vide order impugned.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He contended that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed and there is no evidence against applicant showing involvement of applicant in the alleged commission of offence. He also contended that there is nothing on record to show that if juvenile if released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release will defeat the ends of justice. However, the Board as well as appellate Court have not properly appreciated the facts of the case and have passed impugned orders in a

¶18

¶19

cursory manner without considering the object of the law enacted for the benefit of a Juvenile, refused to release the applicant on bail. Applicant is in observation home since 08.04.2023 and further custody of applicant in the observation home will ruin his future. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that applicant is habitual offender as there are six other criminal cases registered against him out of which one of the offence is under I.P.C. as also under the Arms Act. In other five cases, applicant is made accused with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. It is also contended that as per the social investigation report, the applicant is in the company of known criminal and is continuously involving himself in committing crime, which shows mental status of applicant. He further submits 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 as well as by the Appellate Court.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the documents filed along with criminal revision.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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. ”

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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

¶28

¶29

the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

¶30

(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. ”

¶31

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.

¶32

Perusal of the impugned order would show that the applicant was denied concession of bail on the ground that the child in conflict with law is a habitual offender and he repeatedly committed the crime. He is in habit of consuming liquor & smoking. The other child involved in the incident are of same age group and are his friends. It is also observed that the guardian of the child appears to be incapable of taking care of his child. It is further that giving the benefit of bail to the

¶33

¶34

applicant appears to be failure of justice and there is apprehension that it would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. Learned Appellate Court as well as Board considered the report of the Probation Officer where in, it is mentioned that earlier parents of the applicant were also involved in crime and they have made the crime as source of their livelihood, therefore, the child in conflict with law is not stopped from committing crime. The child in habit of smoking, consuming liquor and gambling, keep arms and is active with his other companions.

¶35

Social investigation report placed before this Court by State counsel would show that, the reason for involvement of applicant in the crime is effect of company of same age group. It further shows that there are other criminal antecedents against the child-in-conflict with law and is continuously involving himself in committing the crime, which shows that his parents are not having command over the juvenile in conflict with law. From the aforementioned fact, the report of the Probation Officer it appears that release of the applicant may likely to bring the applicant in association with the criminals and his release will expose the child in conflict with law to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶36

For the forgoing discussion I am of the view that releasing the applicant will not be in his interest and I do not find any error in the order passed by the Appellate Court as well as by the

¶37

¶38

Board.

¶39

Accordingly, the criminal revision has no merit, which is liable

¶40

to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶41

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Balram

Xyz (Juvenile Balak) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Xyz (Juvenile Balak) 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

Balram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh @ Mangesh Vaidh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwardas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Monu Kumar @ Shuklu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Kumar Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shabbir Kuraishi Vs State of Chhattisgarh