Chattisgarh High Court
Abc vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 June, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR.REV. No. 335 of 2024
Abc S/o Efg,
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh
_____________________________________________________
C A V ORDER
Post for pronouncement of the order dated 19 /06/2024
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
19/06/2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 08.05.2024
ORDER DELIVERED ON 19.06.2024
CRR No. 335 of 2024
• Abc S/o Efg, R/o Zyz Through His Father Efg, R/o Xyz
---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Civil Lines,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
C A V Order
The present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "the Act,2015"), has been
filed on behalf of the child in conflict with law 'XYZ' through his natural
guardian/father against the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Atrocities having additional charge of Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC) and Childrens Court, Bilaspur CG upholding the order
dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur (CG) rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with
Crime No.176/2024 registered at Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 377 & 457 IPC and 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that FIR was lodged by the mother of the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
victims alleging that she works in the Fancy store at Mungeli Naaka and
resides with her two children and her brother. On the date of incident i.e.
11.02.2024, she had gone to Bhanwar Taunk along with the staff and owner
and came back to her house at about 12 O'clock and in the morning, she went
to her workplace as usual. Later on, her neighbour sent a video to her mobile
of the incident and in the night, when she asked her children, they narrated that
on 11.02.2024, in the evening at about 6-7.00 p.m. when their uncle went to
buy vegetables, the applicant (juvenile) came to return the sickle and finding
loneliness of the children, removed his pant, locked the door and committed
unnatural sex with her daughters and thereafter he threatened them not to
disclose to anyone or else he will beat them. On the basis of the said FIR,
Crime No. 176/2024 for the offence under Sections 377 & 457 IPC and 4 & 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was registered against
the applicant.
3 Aggrieved by the above orders, this criminal revision has been preferred
to set aside the same and to admit the child in conflict with law on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant (child in
conflict with law) is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. She
submits that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of three days from the date
of incident and both the Courts have dismissed the bail application only on the
ground that there is possibility that after release on bail, the applicant may
repeat this type of act. She submits that both the courts below have passed the
orders without examining the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act,
2015 whereas it was observed in a number of judgments and categorically held
that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if one of the grounds as provided in
proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 exist. So far as the
ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the relevant provisions.
It is contended that there existed no material to justify rejection of bail on the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act. In view of the above provisions,
the 'child in conflict with law', who has been in custody for quite some time
deserves to be released on bail otherwise, the purpose of provisions of Section
12 of the Juvenile Justice Act shall stand defeated. It is also contended that
care of the juvenile in a child care institution cannot be preferred over his care
in his biological family. Lastly, she submits that bail to a juvenile is a matter of
right, unless his case falls under one of the three disentitling categories
postulated under sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.
5. To this, learned State counsel opposes and submits that the accused
(child in conflict with law) has committed a grave and heinous offence and
therefore he is not entitled for bail on the parameters of Section 12(1) of the
Act. She submits that there is a categorical finding recorded by both the courts
with regard to the seriousness of the offence and also given a finding that in
the interest of justice, the applicant child in conflict-with-law shall not be
released on bail. She further submits that these findings are based on proper
assessment of the material placed before it after considering the ghastly crime
committed by the child in conflict with law and therefore the finding recorded
does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court .
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
7. It is true that the applicant is not major but the fact of commission of the
offence is prima facie established from the statement of the victims. It has to be
noted that the applicant has displayed maturity of mind in perpetrating the
offence, besides clearly showing that he understands the consequence of his
actions. The child in conflict with law has entered the house of the victims to
return the sickle in absence of their guardians (mother) and taking advantage
of loneliness of the minor children, he took-out his pant, locked the door and
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
penetrated his penis into the mouth of the victims and had committed unnatural
sex upon them. While commission of the alleged gruesome crime of carnal
intercourse against ordinary course of nature, he had prepared the video and
circulated the same. Even though it is a relevant factor, which this Court
takes into consideration, while judging the applicant's plea for bail which has
been rejected by the two Courts by the orders impugned. Though there is
nothing in the social investigation report as such, that may disentitle the child in
conflict with law to bail. However, going by the manner of commission of the
offence, the age of the applicant and the age of the victims ie. 5 years and 7
years prima facie the offence committed by him, appears to be heinous. The
gravity and the heinous nature of the offence become relevant while judgment
the entitlement of a juvenile to bail under the last of the three disentitling
categories, under Section 12(1) of the Act, which states that release of the
juvenile to bail would lead to ends of justice being defeated. Ravishing of two
child victims by a teenager, would certainly impact the society in a manner
where an inference of ends of justice being defeated upon grant of bail, may
legitimately be drawn.
8. Ordinarily, the merits of the matter may not be important where the
Courts are inclined to give benefit of bail as envisaged in Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, I am of the opinion that nature of crime including other
merits of the matter may assume ample significance when the Court has to
form an opinion about the ends of justice. The manner of commission of the
crime, the nature thereof cannot be ignored while striking a balance between
the demands of justice on either of the sides. Hence, it cannot be said that the
nature of the crime, the manner or methodology applied, the extent of
involvement and evidence available are of no relevance when judging the
entitlement of a juveniles to bail in cases where heinous crimes are committed.
The ends of justice is undoubtedly a meaningful phrase with multidimensional
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
implications. The Courts are under obligation to address the concerns of both
the sides and strike a delicate balance between the competing and conflicting
demands of justice. When viewing the matters of bail from this particular angle
of deciphering the ends of justice, not only the nature of crime, but the manner
of commission thereof, methodology applied, the mental state, the extent of
involvement, the evidence available shall be the factors to reckon with. The
phrase 'ends of justice' may bring in within its interpretation such factors which
may otherwise seem not so material or may be seemingly extraneous,
irrelevant or unimportant at first glance for the purpose of applicability of last
part of the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of juvenile/accused, has held that
where accused commits grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to
take statutory shelter under the guise of being a child in conflict with law, a
casual or Cavalier approach while recording his age, is not acceptable. It is
also observed that the shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation of the
Juvenile Justice Act is meant for child in conflict with laws, who are innocent
law breakers. Nevertheless, in my view, the nature of crime in which the
juvenile in conflict was found involved in, is again at the center stage. In short,
it can be inferred that the juvenile was found to have complicity in this frightful
crime.
10. In the present case, the juvenile was found to be 14 years of age but the
manner, in which, the crime was committed and the nature thereof impels this
Court to draw a conclusion that in case, the juvenile is released on bail, he
shall fall of in the same hands and environment which most probably contribute
towards his criminal bent of mind. It may be true that the Courts below have
not undertaken a careful exercise by evaluating the social investigation report
while forming their opinion on the first of the two dis-entitling parameters under
the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, that is to say, the prospect of release
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
bringing the child in conflict with into association with some known criminal or
exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger. But, that does not
end the matter. It is a case where the juvenile in conflict, though below the age
of 18 years, has ravished two minor child victims, who are just 5 years and 7
years old.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that for the present, the
above statutory provision for bail to the juvenile has to be considered on the
surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile
does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter
of right. The Act has a solemn purpose to achieve betterment of juvenile
offenders but it is not a shelter home for those juvenile offenders who have got
criminal propensity and a criminal psychology.
12. It is true that the merits of the case or prima facie tenability of the
charge, like an adult, is not entirely decisive to the fate of the bail plea. At the
same time, it is not altogether irrelevant. The gravity of the charge, manner of
its perpetration, circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, its immediate and not so immediate impact on the society at large
and the locality, in particular, besides its impact on the aggrieved family, are all
matters to be taken into account while judging a juvenile's bail plea. All these
factors are relevant under the last dis-entitling clause postulated under the
proviso to Section 12(1)of the Act, which says that release of the juvenile
would ''defeat the ends of justice'. After all ''defeat the ends of justice' is not a
word of art. It has been thoughtfully introduced by the legislature to arm the
Court with a right to overcome an otherwise absolute right to bail, where in the
totality of the circumstances, release on bail would adversely impact the law
and order and the equilibrium of an ordered society.
13. In the case in hand, the applicant/revisionist by his action, has put the
society and its surroundings on alarm. His actions have led to a situation,
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20416
where prima facie no child of tender age and moreover the parents or the
guardians of young children, would feel safe during their daily routine, when
there is nothing otherwise to call extra caution. In the opinion of this Court, it is
a case where release of the juvenile in conflict with law would lead to ends of
justice being defeated. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the
victim child will be lifelong. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy
growth of the victim.
19. The learned appellate Court and the Board have given a concurrent view
and have found him not at all entitled to be released on bail. Thus, I am of the
considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the juvenile in conflict
with law. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
suguna
