Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2024:CGHC:45710

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 610 of 2024

1 - Xyz Nill

... petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Out Post CSEB Korba, Police Station Civil Line, Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶13

Order on board

¶14

21.11.2024

¶15

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba, in Criminal Appeal No.32/2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter 'the Act, 2015’) was dismissed. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner against the

¶16

2 / 5

¶17

rejection of his bail application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 who is in custody in the offence of Crime No. 435/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Out Post CSEB, Rampur, Korba for the offence under Section 302, 307, 34 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is in the Observation home since 04.10.2023 i.e. he has remained in the observation home for more than one year. He further submits that as per Section 12 of the Act, 2015, for the purpose of releasing the juvenile on bail, the gravity of offence is not to been seen. It is also submitted that both the courts below have not discussed anything so far as merits of the case is concerned. Therefore, it is a fit case where the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶19

However, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, also the social status report submitted by the Probation Officer, it is not a fit case where the petitioner be enlarged on bail. He would also submit that as per the report of Probation Officer, there is every possibility that the juvenile in conflict with law would again went in association with the known criminal, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

In case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 reported in 2011(1) CGLRW 140, this court has observed as under:

¶22

“The scope and object of provision regarding grant of bail to a Juvenile as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act came up for consideration before the Single Judge of this Court in the case

¶23

1 2011 (1) CGLRW-140

¶24

3 / 5

¶25

of Bharat @ Bhrat & Another (supra), wherein it was held that the use of word "Shall" by the legislative provisions in the Section 12 of the Act is of great significance and which raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the Juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the Juvenile shall not be so released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section also uses the word "Shall" imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the Board. It has also been held that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to the Juvenile and would be liable to be rejected only when it appears to the Board that either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing.”

¶26

Before considering the case of the petitioner it would be appropriate if Section 12 (1) of the Act is of 2015 is taken into consideration and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder:

¶27

" Section 12: (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the 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 would defeat the ends of justice.

¶28

A plain reading of the said section by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances as a matter of routine, in case an accused person happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained and is brought before the Board, such person

¶29

4 / 5

¶30

notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other special law which is in force should be released on bail. But at the same time the latter part of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual background of a case if it appears to the Court that the releasing of the said juvenile can bring him into the association of the company with which he landed himself in the remand home or he may get exposed to moral and psychological danger as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that upon his release from the observation home can lead to exposing the juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may refuse to release the juvenile on bail.

¶31

In the instant case also taking into consideration the report of the Probation Officer that the petitioner is in the habit of being in the bad company, and taking note of the offence committed by the juvenile cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is all chances of his coming into association with known bad company which would further expose him to moral as well as psychological danger and if that happens on his release, then the ends of justice would get defeated.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the findings given by the Court below does not warrant any interference at this juncture and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, but would fall within the exception carved out in the said section.

¶33

5 / 5

¶34