Chattisgarh High Court
Juvenile In Conflict With Law vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 1184 of 2022
• Juvenile in conflict with law.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Station House Officer,
Police Station AJAK Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. A.K. Mishra, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
18/01/2023
Heard
Admit.
1. The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in
short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 20.10.2022 passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2022 by the Additional Sessions
Judge (FTSC), Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the
learned Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal arising out of
order dated 13.10.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 13/2022
dismissing the bail application of the present applicant by the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Surajpur, District
Surajpur.
2. This is the revision petition filed by the applicant, who is juvenile.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.12.2021, the
prosecutrix was called by one of the accused namely Masukh
with whom she went near Old Petrol Pump by pass road where
the applicant/juvenile in conflict with law was already present.
Thereafter, the applicant along with other co-accused committed
rape with her and also made video thereof. Further, on
01.02.2022, the applicant again called the prosecutrix near Shiv
Park threatening to make the video viral if she do not come.
When the prosecutrix went to the Shiv Park, the applicant and
other co-accused satiated their lust one by one. He filed an
application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for
granting bail which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board
vide order dated 13.10.2022. Against the said dismissal, an
appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the
impugned judgment. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in 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. He further
submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the
presetn case. He has no criminal background. Order passed by
both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. He
further submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released
on bail. The applicant is in custody since 02.10.2022 and
therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail.
4. Counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the two
Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12 of the Act does not warrant any
interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed.
5. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the
complainant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material available on record.
7. In view of above consideration, the impugned judgment dated
20.10.2022 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/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
pkd
