Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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 13.8.2025 by which learned Chief Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur (CG) dismissed Criminal Appeal No.403/2025 filed by applicant against the order dated 22.9.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur (for short 'the Board') in Criminal Case No.314/2025 rejecting application of applicant for grant of bail to him in connection with Crime No.146/2025 registered at Police Station Dharsiva, Raipur

¶16

2

¶17

(CG) for the offences under Sections 103 (1), 238, 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

¶18

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that dead body of a female was found lying in agriculture field of one Anil Verma in village Mohdi. On that basis, merg intimation was recorded. During course of merg inquiry, dead body was identified to be of Sarita Yadav and it was found that cause of death is because of injuries caused by steel spoon, which was recovered from spot. Police registered case against unknown person under Sections 103 (1), 238, 61 (2) of BNS. During investigation, it was gathered that there was love affair between deceased and appellant, however, six months prior to incident, deceased had stopped talking to applicant and annoyed with that, applicant along with other accused, planned to commit murder of Sarita. In execution of such planning, on 20.3.2025 at about 11.40 to 12.00 midnight applicant phoned Sarita and called her. They took her on motorcycle to the spot, there applicant tried to kill by pressing her neck, however, when she raised alarm, applicant took out one steel spoon from his pocket, assaulted on her neck repeatedly and committed her murder. Applicant, a juvenile in conflict with law, was arrested and in his statement recorded by police, he confessed his guilt of committing murder of deceased.

¶19

3

¶20

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with murder of deceased. FIR has been registered against unknown person and applicant has been arrested merely on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused. He submits that the gravity of offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. The Courts below have not appreciated the fact that applicant is juvenile and entitled to get benefit of the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’). He submits that there is no evidence to show that if the applicant is released on bail, then 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 would defeat ends of justice. 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 applicant has admitted in his statement that he has committed murder of deceased Sarita Yadav. There is one criminal antecedent of applicant. 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

¶22

4

¶23

the Court below. Hence, present criminal revision filed on behalf of applicants (juvenile) be dismissed.

¶24

At this stage learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been acquitted from criminal case registered against him and copy of judgment of acquittal is filed along with this revision as Annexure A-3.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the

¶26

documents filed along with criminal revision.

¶27

The provision of bail for juvenile is given under Section 12 of

¶28

the Act of 2015 which reads as under:

¶29

"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-

¶30

(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or nonbailable 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:

¶31

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.

¶32

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an

¶33

5

¶34

observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can brought before a Board.

¶35

(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, as may be specified in the order.

¶36

(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."

¶37

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) release will expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger and; (iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶38

The report of Probation Officer of applicant is placed for perusal of this Court. In this social investigation report of applicant, it is mentioned that behaviour and conduct of applicant, who in observation home for last eight months, is normal. There is no possibility of applicant coming into association with any known criminal. Relations of applicant

¶39

6

¶40

with his family members, with his friends and neighbourers is friendly/cordial. Applicant is not addicted to any kind of intoxicants. He has interest in religious activities and watching television. It is also mentioned in the report that mental and physical condition of juvenile is good. His friends are of same age group and not of criminal background. Nothing adverse has been reported in respect of applicant or that his release would expose him to physical, psychological or moral danger or he would come in association of known criminals.

¶41

Looking to the case on parameters on which the bail can otherwise be denied to a juvenile, there is nothing on record either in the Social Investigation Report or otherwise that the applicant has any kind of criminal history or that family of applicant has a history with crime or any circumstance to show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that in case of release on bail, there is likelihood of applicant coming into association with any known criminal. Equally, there is nothing on record to show that releasing the applicant would expose him to any kind of moral, physical or psychological danger or release of applicants on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

¶42

Thus, taking into facts and circumstances, submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, social investigation report of applicant; period of detention of applicant i.e. more

¶43

7

¶44

than eight months, I am inclined to enlarge applicant (juvenile) on regular bail.

¶45

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court and the Board are hereby quashed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- by parents/guardian, 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 parents/guardian. It shall be duty of the parents/ guardian of applicant to produce him before the Justice Board concerned as and when directed. They shall take proper care of the applicant and will not allow them to fall into association of any person of criminal background. They shall also ensure that applicant will not repeat the offence of like nature in future.

¶46

Certified copy as per rules.

¶47

roshan/-

¶48

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaya Agrawal (in Person ) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shreem Engineer and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Irshad Khan

Shivmoy Datta (wrongly written as Sibamoy Datta) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Rathore Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Shoaibe Dhebar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Puri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh