Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 12.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) Additional charge of Additional Sessions Judge FTC, and Children Court Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Act of 2015’), has been dismissed. The said Criminal Appeal was against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, in Case No.71 of 2024, whereby the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 was dismissed.

¶14

CRR 756 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant admittedly is juvenile, is in observation home from 04.01.2024, and he remained there for more than 10 months. She would further submit that as per Section 12 of the Act, for the purpose of releasing a Juvenile on bail, the gravity of offence is not to be seen. It is also submitted that both the Courts below have not discussed anything so far as merits of the case are concerned, therefore, it is a fit case, where the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail, on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the applicant, and also the social status report submitted by the Probation Officer, who too gave report that the applicant is in habit of wrong company and he may again associate with the criminal activity, therefore, the applicant is not to be released on bail.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition as well as the case diary.

¶19

In case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2 011 (1) CGLRW-140, in para -6 of the said judgment, this court has observed as under:

¶20

“6.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

¶21

CRR 756 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

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

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

¶25

“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:

¶26

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.”

¶27

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 happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained and is brought before the

¶28

CRR 756 of 2024

¶29

4

¶30

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 of the Act 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 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 show 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 Probation Officer, that the applicant may indulge in 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 applicant is released on bail, there is every chance 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 foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the Juvenile Justice Board does not warrant any interference by this Court at this juncture, and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Act, but would fall within the exception carved out in the said Section.

¶33

CRR 756 of 2024

¶34

5

¶35

Accordingly, no good case is made out for allowing the instant criminal revision calling for interference with the order under challenge.

¶36

Criminal Revision being devoid of merit, it is dismissed. However, the learned Juvenile Justice Board is expected to decide the case as early as possible.

¶37

Certified copy as per rules.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lata Singh Thakur Vs Dinesh Singh Thakur

Tarun Hathel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Das Mahant Vs Sushmita Mahant

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

A Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh