Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 February, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
(Proceedings through Video Conferencing)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 24 of 2022
1.
Abc Nill
2. Def Nill
3. Xyz Nill
---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Station House Officer, P.S.
Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). ---- Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Order on Board
11.02.2022
Heard.
1) This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred
as "Act of 2015) is directed against the judgment dated
23.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal Case No.
243/2021, upholding the order dated 20.12.2021 of the Juvenile
Justice Board, Durg (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the
applicant in connection with Crime No. 402/2021 registered at
Police Station Pulgaon, Chowki- Jevarasirsa, Durg (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 147, 302 IPC.
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.09.2021, the
applicants/juvenile were calculating the expenditures incurred in
installation of idol lord Ganesha in Satnam Bhawan, at that point
of time Ravi Chaturvedi came there and seeing him, the
applicants/juvenile abused him filthily and ousted him from there.
After some time, Ravi Satnami call his parents and quarrel
ensued between the parties. During this process, one of the
juvenile accused called his father and some other persons and
assaulted the complainant party with hands, fists and legs. As a
result, one Devnarayan sustained grievious injury and
succumbed to the same on 28.09.2021 during the course of
treatment and other persons of the complainant sustained
injuries.
3) Learned counsel for the applicants/juvenile submits that the they
are innocent boys and have been falsely implicated in this case.
They have no criminal antecedents. The Courts below have not
properly appreciated the social status reports of the Probation
Officer. He further submits that in this case, a counter FIR was
also registered by the applicants against the complainant party
bearing Crime No. 401/2021 for the offence under Sections 294,
323, 506, 34 of IPC but the said fact has not been considered by
the Courts below. Co-accused Dilip Joshi and Devkumar Joshi
have already granted regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 04.02.2022 passed in MCRC No.
10256 of 2021. Therefore, the applicants/juvenile be released on
bail.
4) On the other hand learned State counsel supports the impugned
judgment.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
material available on record.
6) In the social status reports of the applicants, 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. As per reports of Probation Officer, there is also no
previous criminal antecedents of the applicants, the co-accused
persons have already been granted regular bail by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. To decide the bail application of the
applicants/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 in respect of each of the
applicants/juvenile 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 their appearance as and when required before
Juvenile Justice Board or Child Court, the applicants/juvenile
shall be given in custody of his natural guardian.
Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Nadim
