Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30/12/2024 passed by the Children Court/ A.S.J. (F.T.S.C.) (POCSO) Act, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Appeal No.67/2024 whereby the order dated 14/11/2024 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur in Criminal Case No.100/2024, C.G. rejecting the application for grant of bail has been affirmed.

ASHUTOSHMISHRA Digitallysigned byASHUTOSHMISHRADate:2025.03.2013:19:16+0530

2 / 4

The brief facts of this case are that on 21/08/2024 complainant/Victim’s father lodged the report at Police Station Sitapur against the applicant juvenile/applicant alleging therein that on 20/08/2024 at about 8.00 PM he came to know that his minor daughter was not present in the house. Thereafter, he made a search about his daughter and on search being made it was informed near his village that the present applicant has taken his daughter near the village pond and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on the basis of the report lodged by the father of the victim, the police arrested the applicant.

Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 before the concerned J.J. Board and the Board by order dated 14/11/2024 rejected the application by observing that the offence is grievous in nature and there is chance that after release the applicant will come in the contact with the known persons. Thereafter, against the order dated 14/11/2024 the applicant filed an appeal under Section 101 of the J.J. Act, 2015 before the Sessions Court and the said appeal has also been dismissed by order dated 30/12/2024. Hence this revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated as the victim has named three persons and no TIP has been conducted and the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. He would next contend that without following the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the bail application of the applicant has been rejected. He would next contend that the applicant has suffered 04 months of the jail sentence, therefore, the impugned

3 / 4

orders are required to be set aside and the applicant may be released on bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are well merited which do not call for any interference.

Perusal of the documents would show that it is a case of rape as the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the 11 year old prosecutrix. On perusal of the record including the social status report, the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the report of the probation officer shows that the juvenile has left his studies. Therefore, Section 12 of the Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to give advantage to only juvenile in conflict with law ignoring the concern of the society.

Therefore, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and looking to the gravity of offence which is of commission of rape and also considering the fact that the way the offence has been committed which is of a serious nature of committing rape by taking the victim to a some other place. Further considering the age of the applicant as he was 16 years old at the time of commission of offence, it shows that if the applicant is released on bail, he may again come in contact with known criminals, in such circumstances giving bail to the applicant would be a miscarriage of justice.

4 / 4