Juvenile In Conflict With Law ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2856 Chatt

                                 1

                                                              NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        CRR No. 648 of 2021

    Juvenile Y S/o Late Chhabiram Sahu Aged About 17 Years R/o
     Trimurty Nagar, Mathpuraina, P. S. Tikrapara, District Raipur
     Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Fokatpara, Devsundara, Tahsil
     Palari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Through
     Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ishwari Bai Sahu, W/o Late
     Chhabiram Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Trimurty Nagar,
     Mathpuraina, P. S. Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
     Permanent R/o Fokatpara, Devsundara, Tahsil Palari, District
     Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

                                                    ---- Petitioner

                              Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Ofcer, Police
     Station Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                   ---- Respondent

and

CRR No. 611 of 2021

 Juvenile A, in Confict With Law Disuja Manikpuri @ Atul Through Natural Guardian Father Kuldeep Manikpuri, S/o Far Hari Das Manikpuri, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Mathpuraina, Police Station Tikrapara Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Ofcer, Police Of Police Statation Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.)

---- Respo

For respective applicants Mr. Satya Prakash Verma and Ms. Dolly Soni, Advocates For Respondent /State Mr. Rahim Ubwani, Panel Lawyer

For Objector Mr. Rohitasva Singh, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Order On Board

25/10/2021

1. Since both the revisions arise out of the same crime number,

they are being disposed of by this common order.

Criminal Revision No.648/2021

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and Protection of Children) Act has been preferred

against the judgment dated 2.9.2021 passed by the

Special/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal

Appeal No. 126/2021, upholding the order dated 7.8.2021

passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,

Mana Camp, Raipur rejecting the bail application of the

applicant in connection with Crime No. 213/2021 registered at

Police Station Tikrapara for the ofence punishable under

Sections 265, 342, 323, 377, 506, 34 of the IPC.

Criminal Revision No.611/2021

3. The present revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act has been

preferred against the judgment dated 12.8.2021 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Criminal Appeal No.

120/2021, upholding the order dated 30.7.2021 passed by the

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp,

Raipur rejecting the bail application of the applicant in

connection with the aforesaid crime.

4. The juveniles are present in person with their guardians.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.6.2021 at

about 12:30 p.m., one Parasmani Dhimar along with Aaditya

Pandey and Vineet Sarthi was playing near Mathpuraina Talab.

At that point of time, one Rahul Tandi and juvenile A of the

same vicinity came on a motorcycle and by intimidating, forced

them to sit on the motorcycle and when they denied, Rahul

Tandi threatened and made Parasmani Dhirmar and Aaditya

Pandey sit on his motorcycle whereas juvenile A caught hold of

Vineeth Sarthi and kept him near a temple. Rahul Tandi took

Parasmani Dhirmar and Aaditya Pandey to an abandoned

delapidated building at Kaserbada and after sometime, Vineet

Sarthi was also brought there by juvenile A and thereafter, all

three of them were thrashed naked with belt and wooden stick.

At that juncture, their fellow Juvenile Y also came there and

after removing his full pant and underwear, committed oral sex

with Parasmani Dhimar. Thereafter, all the three threatened

the victims of dire consequences if they disclosed this fact to

anybody.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants jointly submit that the

Courts below were not justifed in rejecting the bail

applications of the juvenile. He submits that Section 12 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (in short

"the 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 have not been

properly appreciated by the Board as well as the Appellate

Court and no specifc circumstances, which are required to be

present under Section 12 of the Act for rejecting bail, are given

against them. The social status reports had been in favour of

the juvenile despite that the Board and the Appellate Court

both have given consideration to the gravity of the ofence and

rejected the applications. The applicants are innocent boys

and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

further submitted that the conclusion of the trial may take

sometime, therefore, they may be released on bail.

7. On the other hand learned State counsel as well as the counsel

for the objector opposes the revision petitions. It is submitted

that looking to the nature and gravity of the ofence, both the

Courts below were justifed in rejecting the prayer of bail of the

applicants.

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

the material available on record.

9. The contents of the 'social status report' in case of juvenile Y in

CRR No.648/2021 states that the applicant is not disciplined,

roams around with friends and have fallen into the wrong

company. These are the main reasons mentioned in the said

report. So far as juvenile A in CRR No. 611/2021 is concerned, in

his 'social status report', it has been mentioned that he

belongs to a low class family, he needs to attend the vocational

training programmes, requires proper guidance and proper

monitoring etc.

10. In the social status reports of both the applicants, no specifc

circumstances, which are required to be present for rejecting

the bail applications 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

applicants. To decide the bail applications of the applicant-

juvenile(s), only nature and gravity of the ofence 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 reports of the Probation

Ofcer. Therefore, the orders of rejection passed by the Board

as well as the Appellate Court are erroneous and need

interference.

11. Accordingly, both the criminal revisions are allowed.

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

aside. It is directed that on furnishing a surety of Rs.25,000/-

along with a bond of the same amount, which is to be of the

natural guardian mother/father of each of the juvenile, to the

satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for their

appearance as and when directed, the applicants-juveniles shall

be given in custody of their natural guardian mother/father.

13. Certifed copy as per rules

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

Shyna