Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz (Delinquent Juvenile) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 March, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 55 of 2022
Xyz (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The Applicant Is Filed
Separately Under Sealed Envelope)
----Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Lailunga, District-
Raigarh (C.G.).
---- Respondents
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Adil Minhaj, G. A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
14.03.2022
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
04.12.2021 passed by the Children Court/Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 80/2021
upholding the order dated 10.11.2021 of the Juvenile Justice
Board, Raigarh (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the
applicant/juvenile in connection with Crime No. 203/2021
registered at Police Station- Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for
the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2021 a quarrel
took place between the deceased and the applicant along with
another co-accused for growing crops, due to which another co-
accused hit the deceased on the temple (below the head), head
and chest with the handle of spade, as a result thereof injuries
caused to the deceased and he succumbed to the said injuries.
Thereafter, an offence has been registered before the police
Station. The charge-sheet has been filed against the present
applicant.
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. The applicant is a domestic labour facing
acute hardships due to Covid-19 Pandemic. He would further
submit that both the Court below have not properly appreciated
the Social Status Report of the Probation Officer. Therefore, the
applicant/juvenile may 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 a school dropout 17 years boy and in his family he
has only mother as guardian and three brothers, who were doing
agricultural work for their livelihood. As per neighbor of the
juvenile, his behavior is well and good and it is also stated in the
social status report that there is no criminal antecedent of the
juvenile, 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 19.07.2021, this
Court is of the view that the Board as well as the Appellate Cort,
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 sureties bonds of Rs.
25,000/-, one of which is to be of the natural guardian i.e. Uncle
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.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/--
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
amita
