Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision. No. 40 of 2022
X, aged about 17 years, S/o- Sahdev Nishad, Resident of at Village
Bodesara, at present Birkol, Police Station and Tahsil Saraipali, District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station
Saraipali, Civil and Revenue, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
---- State/Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Shri Sunil Verma, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Deputy Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J
Order on Board
25.02.2022
1.
This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act has been preferred against the judgment dated
13.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Court, First Additional Sessions Judge,
Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2021,
upholding the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Mahasamund rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with
Crime 415/2021 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332, 294, 506,
147, 148, 149, 427, 392/34 of IPC.
2. The proseuction story in nutshell is that during Deepawali festival, the police
people on receiving a secret information caught hold of the present applicant
and other co-accused persons while gambling. It is alleged that the applicant
and other co-accused persons also abused and manhandled with the police
people and also damaged their vehicle when they went to arrest them.
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 given against him.
The social status report had been 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 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, the applicant may
be released on bail. He further submits that the co-accused persons namely
Prahallad Patel, Suresh Sahu, Anand Nishad, Vinod Nishad, Mukesh
Nishad, Pardesi Nishad, Noorpati Patel and Chandrashekhar have been
granted regular bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide common
order dated 31.01.2022 passed M.Cr.Cs. No. 9046/2021, 195/2022,
9582/2021, 9822/2021 & 10001/2021.
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. 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.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the entire
status report of the Probation Officer, the other co-accused persons have
already been granted regular bail by the coordinate bench of this Court, the
age of juvenile in conflict with law i.e. 17 years old at the time incident, he is
in Observation Home since 05.11.2021, without commenting anything on
merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case to
release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed.
9. 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, the applicant-juvenile shall be given in
custody of his natural guardian.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
vatti
