Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 . The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the

¶17

2

¶18

impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No. 169/2025, upholding the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, District – Raipupr (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 536/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the of f ence . punishable under Sections 307, 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC 2 . As per the prosecution’s case, the complainant, Ayush Patre, lodged a report stating that on 13.11.2023, he had gone to Pandri Talab along with others for the immersion of the Gauri-Gaura idol. After the immersion, while returning at around 4:30 p.m., he saw that a quarrel and scufe were fl taking place between one Lochan and applicant and other co-accused persons Yash Bairagi @ Dahu, Pintu, and Om Goswami. It is alleged that all four accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, were verbally abusing Lochan using obscene language and physically assaulting him. During the assault, co-accused Yash Bairagi @ Dahu, with an intention to kill, took out a knife and attacked Lochan, Thereafter, all four accused, one after another, inf l icted multiple knife blows upon Lochan, causing severe bleeding, as a result of which Lochan

¶19

3

¶20

collapsed on the spot and all the accused persons f l ed from the scene. The injured was taken to the hospital and during treatment the injured succumbed to his injuries at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, on 14.11.2023. Based on above, of f ence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 20.11.2023.

¶21

3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The applicant is aged about 15 years and he is in the observation home since 20.11.2023. She further submits that there is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. The learned Court below have in mechanical manner rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶22

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail and submits that a seizure of blood stained shirt has been made from the applicant. However, the social status report is in favour of the applicant, and he has no criminal antecedents. She also submits that the age of the applicant is 15 years.

¶23

5 . Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a

¶24

4

¶25

child alleged to be in conf l ict with law should be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation of fi cer or under the care of any f i t person. The only embargo created is that in case the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied.

¶26

6 . Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by the concerned Probation Of fi cer states the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner and the child's education is interrupted, and there is a need to reconnect the child with education. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the application f i led under Section 12 of the Act, 2015. The Courts below have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015.

¶27

7 . Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the

¶28

5

¶29

Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verif i ed by the trial Court.

¶30

8 . It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station.

¶31

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Shubham

Juvenile in Conflict With Law v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile in Conflict With Law 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

Amirchand Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karan @ Dularelal Agariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salman Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chotu Alias Shrawan Kumar Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subham Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salma Begam @ Rabo Vs State of Chhattisgarh