Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 May, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 205 of 2022
X Nill
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer,
Police Station - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Shri Jitendra Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Shri Lalit Jandge, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Order on Board
02.05.2022
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 02.11.2021 Additional Sessions Judge/FCT,
Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2021, upholding
the order dated 20.10.2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Raigarh (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the
applicant/juvenile in connection with Crime No. 319/2021
registered at Police Station Ghardhoda, Raigarh (C.G.) for
the offence under Sections 363, 376 of IPC & Sections 4, 8
of POCSO Act.
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that when the prosecutrix
was playing outside her home, she has not returned till 7
pm, thereafter, her elder sister went outside for her search
and brought with her then the prosecutrix stated the entire
story whiningly that the juvenile took her to kitchen garden
'baadi' and committed rape upon her. Mother of the
prosecutrix noticed swelling on the private part of her.
Thereafter, report was lodged against the juvenile.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant/juvenile submits that the
applicant/juvenile is an innocent boy and he is the first
offender, he has no criminal antecedents. The juvenile is
studying in class 10th, his family is economically unsound,
there is full control of his parents on him. He is required to
give advice regularly. The Courts below have not properly
appreciated the Social Status report of the Probation Officer.
Therefore, the juvenile be released on bail.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the
impugned judgment.
5) Mother and father of the prosecutrix have appeared before
this Court and they have raised no objection to release of
the juvenile on bail.
6) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the material available on record.
7) 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 studying in class 10 th, he is 14
years old, he needs to continue his studies, regular advice
required for him, to decide the bail application of the
juvenile, only nature and gravity of the offence is not to be
taken into consideration.
8) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
evidence of the prosecutrix (PW/1), her parents (PW/2) &
(PW/3), they did not support the prosecution case and they
turned hostile, considering the age of the juvenile in conflict
with law i.e. 14 years old, he is in Observation Home since
03.10.2021, the fact that parents of the prosecutrix have
raised no objection to release of the juvenile on bail, 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.
9) Accordingly, the Criminal revision is allowed.
10) 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
juvenile shall be given in custody of his natural guardian.
Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Nadim
