Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 February, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 740 of 2021
X Nill ---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---------Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Amit Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer
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
30.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge
(F.T.S.C.)POCSO Act Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Criminal
Appeal Case No. 11/2021, upholding the order dated 25.08.2021
of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli (C.G.) rejecting the bail
application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.
140/2021 registered at Police Station Fasterpur, for the offence
under Section 302 and 201/34 of IPC.
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant/juvenile in
association with other co-accused committed murder of Ku.
Heera Yadav, daughter of complainant Mohan Yadav by
strangulating her and in order to cause disappearance of the
evidence of crime threw the dead body into the water of Bodha
stone mine.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant/juvenile is an innocent boy and has been falsely
implicated in this case. He has no criminal antecedents. The
Courts below have not properly appreciated the social status
report of the Probation Officer. Therefore, the applicant/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 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.
7) Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the age of the juvenile in conflict with law i.e. 16 years old, he is
in Observation Home since June 2021 and till now trial is not
concluded, as per Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act inquiry is to be completed within a
period of four months from the date of first production of child
before the Board which can be extended by two more months by
the Board, 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 juvenile, to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice
Board, for his appearance as and when required before Juvenile
Justice Board or Child Court, the applicant-juvenile shall be
given in custody of his natural guardian.
Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Santosh
