Chattisgarh High Court
A Juvenile Confilict With Law vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 891 of 2022
A Juvenile conflict with law
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.)
---- State/Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
09.02.2023
1. Heard.
2. This revision petition is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
& Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 26.07.2022
passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Balod, District Balod
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2022, upholding the order dated
29.06.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, District Balod rejecting the
bail application of the applicant filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in connection with Crime 82/2022
registered at Police Station Dondilohara, District Balod (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 342 & 376 (2) (n) of IPC and
Sections 4, 5 & 6(A) of POCSO Act.
3. On 09.01.2023 father of the victim was present before this Court through
Video Conferencing from DLSA, Balod and he has raised objection for grant
of bail to the applicant.
4. As per case of prosecution, on 30.04.2022 at about 08:00 am while the
victim was coming back to her house, the present applicant allured her and
took her to his house and thereafter committed the aforesaid offences
against her. It is also alleged that earlier also, same act was committed by
the applicant against the victim. The matter was informed to the family
members of the victim and thereafter a report was lodged. Consequently, the
police registered the above mentioned offences against the present
applicant.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was
below 18 years of age at the time of incident, they were in relations and a
false report has been lodged against the applicant, whereas, he has not
committed any offence. He would also submit that the police has filed
charge-sheet and the applicant is in observation home since 01.05.2022.
Therefore, the criminal revision preferred by the present applicant may be
allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the
submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary
as well as social status report.
8. In the social status report, it has come that the applicant studies in 11 th Class
and he was also working as labourer and no definite opinion has been given.
On 30.04.2022, the present applicant allured the victim, took her to his
house and thereafter he committed the offence and on that date, the
applicant was below 18 years of age, charge-sheet has already been filed,
the applicant is in observation home since 01.05.2022 and no fruitful
purpose would be served in keeping him in observation home as he is a
student. Considering all the above aspects, I am inclined to allow this
criminal revision.
9. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed. The judgment dated
26.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012), Balod, District
Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2022 and order dated 29.06.2022
passed by Juvenile Justice Board, District Balod (C.G.) are set aside. It is
directed that on furnishing a surety of Rs.50,000/- along with a bond of same
amount which are to be of his natural guardian/father/mother, to the
satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance as
and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural
guardian/father/ mother.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
