Yuvraj Ratre @ Vidyaprakash Ratre vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3595 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                       NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRR No. 761 of 2021

    Juvenile in conflict with law, aged about 17 Years, Minor Through
     Legal Guardian Father Hari Chandra Ratre, Son of Dular Ratre, aged
     about 55 Years, R/o Mandhaibhatha, Post Sarsinwa, District
     Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ----Applicant

                                  Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police
     Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                                     ----State/Non-applicant



For Applicant     Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate.
For State         Shri Adil Minhaj, Government Advocate.


                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
                             Order on Board

09/12/2021

   1.

This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act has been preferred against the

judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

(F.T.C.), Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 59/2021, upholding the

order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Raigarh, C.G. rejecting the bail application of the

applicant in connection with Crime No.511/2021 registered at Police

Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G. for the offence punishable

under Sections 399, 402 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. As per the prosecution case, secret information was received by the

police that the present applicant along with six other co-accused

persons are armed with sword, pistol & Katta and planning to commit

a dacoity in the Jewellery shop and Bank. On receiving said

information, police personnel proceeded to the spot and caught the

accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below were

not justified in rejecting the bail application of the juvenile. He submits

that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act provides that a juvenile must be released on bail as far

as possible unless there are valid reasons for not allowing him bail. In

the present case, social status report has not been properly

appreciated by the Board as well as the Appellate Court and no

specific circumstances, which are required to be present under

Section 12 of the Act for rejecting bail, are there against him. The

social status report is in favour of the juvenile despite that the Board

and the Appellate Court both have given consideration to the gravity of

the offence and rejected the application. The applicant is an innocent

boy and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further

submitted that the conclusion of the trial may take sometime,

therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the revision

petition. It is submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the

offence, both the Courts below were justified in rejecting the prayer of

bail of the applicant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the

material available on record.

6. In the social status report of the applicant, no specific circumstances,

which are required to be present for rejecting the bail application as

contained in the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act are found. There is also no previous

criminal antecedents of the applicant who is in observation home

since 27.08.2021. Only co-accused persons stated in their

memorandum statements that the present applicant is involved in

another theft but no charge sheet is filed against the present applicant.

To decide the bail application of the applicant-juvenile, only nature and

gravity of the offence is not to be taken into consideration. Hence, this

Court is of the view that the Board as well as the Appellate Court, both

have committed error by not properly appreciating the report of the

Probation officer. Therefore, the orders of rejection passed by the

Board as well as the Appellate Court are erroneous and need

interference.

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed.

8. The impugned orders passed by both the Courts below are set-aside.

It is directed that on furnishing two surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- each,

one of which is to be of the natural guardian of the juvenile, to the

satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his

appearance as and when required before Juvenile Justice Board or

Child Court, the applicant-juvenile shall be given in custody of his

natural guardian.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Akhilesh