Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Proceeding through Video Conferencing
CRR No. 100 of 2021
Santosh Kumar S/o Late Manmohan Aged About 17 Years
(Aged About 17 Years 10 Months) Through Natural Guardian Of
Smt. Rajkumari Chouhan, Wife Of Sanat Kumar Chouhan, Aged
About 50 Years, Caste Ganda, Residence Of Shanti Nagar,
Balgi Khar, Thana Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Korba, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh, Police Station - Bankimongra, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For the Applicant : Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Shri Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
29 /06/2021
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 13/01/2021
passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)/Child Court
Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2021,
whereby the appeal preferred by the applicant-juvenile against the
order of Juvenile Justice Board, District Korba (C.G.) dated
30/12/2020 has been dismissed, whereby the applicant has been
denied bail.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned judgment
passed by the learned Courts below suffers from factual and legal
infirmity, both the Courts below have dismissed the application as
well as appeal only on the ground of involvement of applicant with
the crime, they have neither appreciated social status report of the
applicant nor taken care of provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He further
submits that applicant has been roped in the offence due to enmity.
He is in observation home since 10/10/2020. It is prayed that this
revision petition may be allowed and the relief may be granted to
the applicant/juvenile.
3. Learned State counsel submits that the Board as well as the
appellate Court, both have not committed error in passing the
impugned order, therefore the applicant/juvenile is not entitled for
grant of bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
5. Considered on the submission made by both the counsels. Perusal
of impugned order shows that involvement of applicant/juvenile with
the offence has been taken into consideration. Social status report
of applicant/juvenile has not been taken into consideration by both
the Courts below. Social status report mentions that this is first
offence against the applicant/juvenile. If he is kept for more period
in custody, then it will affect to his mental and moral status. Nothing
has been mentioned in the social status report which can be taken
as a ground for dismissal of bail to the juvenile under proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. The Board as well as appellate Court, both
have committed error in rejecting bail to the applicant/juvenile,
hence, for these reasons I am inclined to allow this revision petition.
6. Consequently, the order dated 13/01/2021 passed by learned
Special Judge (POCSO)/ Child Court Katghora, District Korba
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2021 is set-aside. It is directed
that on furnishing a surety of Rs.25,000/- along with a bond of
same amount, which is to be of applicant's guardian/granny (Nani)
(as stated that father and mother of applicant/juvenile have died), to
the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his
appearance as and when directed, then the applicant/juvenile shall
be given in custody of his guardian/granny (Nani).
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi)
JUDGE
Kamde
