A vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 822 Chatt

                                                             Page 1 of 3


                                                                  NAFR



             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          CRR No. 87 of 2022

  1. A Nil

  2. B Nil

  3. C Nil

                                               ---- Applicants/Juvenile

                                Versus

    State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The District Magistrate, Durg
     District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.                    ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board 17.02.2022

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. 242/2021, upholding the order dated 30.10.2021 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 Pugaon, Chowki- Jevra Sirsa for the offence under Section 302, 294, 506, 323, 147 of 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 submits that the applicants/juvenile are an innocent boy and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal antecedents. Revision petition of the Co-juvenile has already been allowed by this Court on 11.02.2022 passed in CRR No. 24 of 2022. The Courts below have not properly appreciated the social status report of the Probation Officer. 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 report 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. There is also no previous criminal antecedents of the applicants/juvenile. As per social status report the applicants 'B & C' are student of class-10 th & applicant 'A' had studied up to class 8th and as such, they need to get higher education, they are in Observation Home since 29.09.2021, and have no bad habit. To decide the bail application of the applicant/ juvenile, only nature and gravity of the offence is not to be taken into consideration.

7) Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the juvenile in conflict with law i.e. 14, 15 & 16 years, revision petition of the Co-juvenile has already been allowed by this Court on 11.02.2022 passed in CRR No. 24 of 2022, the provisions of Section 12 of the Said Act, without commenting anything on merits of the case, 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.

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 applicants/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 their natural guardian.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Nadim