Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 952 of 2021
XYZ as per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-02-2022.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District- Magistrate, Bilaspur
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Order on Board
18.02.2022
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 27.11.2021 passed by the Childrens
Court/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC|), Bilaspur (C.G.) in
Criminal Appeal No. 182/2021, upholding the order dated
10.11.2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.)
rejecting the bail application of the applicant/juvenile in
connection with Crime No. 1116/2021 registered at Police
Station Civil Line, Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence under
Sections 294, 323, 506, 307 read with 34 of IPC.
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.10.2021,
members of Tridev Yuva Manch Durga Samiti were
quarreling in front of Gayatri Medical with the brother of the
complainant namely Deva Gupta and with intention to kill
him, the applicant/juvenile with other co-accused persons
abused him filthily and assaulted him with knife, belt, fiber
pipe, as a result, victim sustained stab injury and his
intestines came out, after intervention of the complainant he
was admitted in hospital for his treatment.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile submits that the
applicant/juvenile is an innocent boy and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. He is student and required to
continue his studies. 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/juvenile, no
specific circumstances, which are required to be present for
rejecting the bail application as contained in the provisions
of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 are found. As per Social
Status report the applicant is 17 years old, he is student of
class - XI, he needs to continue his studies, as per neighbor
of the juvenile his behavior is good, 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, considering the age of the juvenile in conflict with law
i.e. 17 years old, he is in Observation Home since
17.10.2021, stab injury was not caused by the
juvenile/applicant but it was caused by co-accused Rahul
Bhimte, 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
Nadim
