A B C (Minor) vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1407 Chatt

                                                                   Page 1 of 4

                                                                         NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          CRR No. 56 of 2022
    ABC (Minor) (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The Applicant
     Is Filed Separately Under Sealed Envelope)      ----Applicant
                                 Versus
    State of Chhattisgarh, through          District      Magistrate, Raipur,
     District Raipur (C.G.)                             ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Mrs. Richa Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

17.03.2022

1. This Criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

(hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2015") is directed against

the judgment dated 04-2-2022 passed by the Learned

Special/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC Additional Charge)

Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2022 upholding the

order dated 25-11-2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana

Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) rejecting the bail

application of the applicant/juvenile in connection with Crime

No. 512/2021 registered at Police Station- Khamtrai, District-

Raipur (C.G.) for the ofence under Section 302/34 of IPC and

Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Komal

Sahu @ Lalu Sahu was the brother of complainant namely

Birendra Sahu. On 22-8-2021 Komal Sahu did not come back

to his house. On 23-8-2021 complainant Birendra Sahu was

informed by one person stating that his brother was found

lying dead near the house of Pukhraj Singh and unknown

person killed and threw him. The complainant after having

received the information about the death of his brother went

to Police Station and lodged report in Police Station, on the

basis of which Police conducted investigation and after

investigation ofence under Section 302 of IPC and Sections

25 & 27 of the Arms Act has been registered before the police

Station. The charge-sheet has been fled against the present

applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and there

is no evidence that the applicant has committed the aforesaid

ofence. She would further submit that the present case, the

Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have

completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of

Section 12 of the Act of 2015, which itself is pari materia of

Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the

application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of

2015. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit

that grant of bail to a juvenile is rule and exceptional

circumstances under which, it could be rejected are under

those which have been exhaustively enumerated in Section

12 of the Act of 2015 itself. Unless those grounds are made

out, a juvenile is required to be granted bail. It is further

contended that in the present case, report of the Probation

Officer fled before the Juvenile Justice Board does not

indicate anywhere that his release would bring him in

association with any known criminals or expose them to

moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise

defeat the ends of justice. It is contended that the Juvenile

Justice Board as well as the appellate authority have rejected

the bail application by mechanically applying the aforesaid

clauses, though bereft of any material. Counsel for the

applicant would also submit that the applicant is in

observation home since 24-8-2021 and he has completed

more than seven months in custody, therefore, he may be

extended beneft of bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that

the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justifed

and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act

does not warrant any interference and the instant revision

deserves to be set aside.

5. The provisions regarding grant of bail to a juvenile as per

Section 12 of the Act, clearly shows that the legislature has

used the word "shall" in the said Section with great stress

and with somewhat mandatory force which in other words

means ordinarily irrespective of the nature of ofence

whenever a juvenile applies for bail he should be released on

bail. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of

Jaleshwar Barman @ Dadu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

(CRR No.963/2016) and Shrawan Bhagat Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh (CRR No. 67/2014) aggregatively discussed

on Section 12 and it is held that use of word "shall" by the

legislative provisions in Section 12 of the Act is of great

signifcance and which raises a presumption that the

particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that

ordinarily the board is under obligation to release the juvenile

on bail with or without surety, but the juvenile shall not be so

released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section

also uses the word "shall" imposing certain mandatory

conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the

Board. This court vide its order dated 18-1-2022 has called

for the case diary as well as the status report from the

concerned Probation Officer, Government Rehabilitation

Centre, Camp Mana, Raipur and in pursuance of the said

direction, a report has been submitted which does not

indicate that there is a chance of in contact with the persons

having criminal antecedents. The status report further shows

that the general condition of the family of the

applicant/juvenile is normal, he is a school going student and

there is no adverse report against him.

6. On perusal of the record, I do not fnd any reasonable ground

having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the

Police Authorities in respect of the so called threat of the

juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological

danger or come in the company of known criminal.

7. In view of the aforesaid consideration, the impugned order

dated 4-1-2022 could not be sustained and is therefore, set

aside. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is

allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, by the

parents or guardians of the applicant, as the case may be, to

the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his

appearance before the Board, as and when directed.

8. The revision is accordingly allowed . Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju