Allowed

A through B v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC27 Nov 2024CRR/675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed the Criminal Revision challenging the rejection of bail. The court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to release the juvenile applicant on personal bond after considering his age, lack of criminal record, and duration of detention.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; applicant directed to be released in custody of guardian on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety.

A through B Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:46941

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRR No. 675 of 2024

¶6

1 - A through B Aged About XYZ years R/o XYZ

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kharsiya District- Raigarh ( C.G.).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Raashi Tiwari, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board

¶13

28-11-2024

¶14

1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 12-06-2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.72/2024 by the learned Juvenile Court/Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Raigarh (C.G.) upholding the order dated 23-05-2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh whereby the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the Act, 2015’) in connection with Crime No.179/2024 in Juvenile Case No.71/2024 has been rejected.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is admittedly a juvenile age about 17 years. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix was also of the same age group. He would further submit that

¶16

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

apart from the present case there is no criminal antecedent o the applicant. The applicant is in observation home since 18-03-2024. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

¶20

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition as well as the case diary.

¶21

5. In the case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh¹

¶22

wherein in para -6, this court has observed as under:

¶23

“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 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.”

¶24

6. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if

¶25

Section 12 (1) of the Act 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder:

¶26

“Section 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 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 (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 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

¶28

1 2011 (1) CGLRW-140

¶29

3 / 4

¶30

the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.”

¶31

7. A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015 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 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.

¶32

8. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant being juvenile is already in observation home for more than seven months; also considering the nature of offence and the ratio laid down in the case of Dayasagar Yadav (supra), keeping in mind the facts that there is no past criminal record and that if the applicant is released on bail, there is no chances of his coming into association with known bad company which could further expose him to moral as well as psychological danger, further it also appears that prima facie it is an act which is a folly of age and that there was no criminal motive or intention on the part of the applicant/juvenile, thus, it is a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail.

¶33

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order 12-062024 passed by the learned Juvenile Court/Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Raigarh, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.72/2024 and the order dated 23-05-2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

Board, Raigarh in the bail application of the applicant in Juvenile Case No.71/2024 are set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian.

¶36

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶37

Aadil

A through B v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A through B 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Ambade Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhamesh Rathor Vs State of Chhattisgarh