Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18476
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 401 of 2025
Xyz (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And The
Name Of Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope)
... Petitioner
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station AJAK, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
21/04/2025
1. The present criminal revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act
of 2015') against the judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed by the
learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2025,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 101 of
the Act of 2015 was rejected and the order of rejection of bail by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur dated 06.02.2025, in
Crime No. 03 of 2024 registered at police station AJAK, Baikunthpur
is affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
admittedly a juvenile and he is in observation home since
31.12.2024. It is further submitted that as per Section 12 of the Act of
2015, for the purpose of releasing a juvenile on bail, the gravity of the
offence is not to be seen. It is also submitted that the learned
Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court has
discussed the merits of the case, whereas the merits of the case
would be of no relevance, while considering bail application of the
juvenile. He would also submit that there is no possibility that after
releasing him on bail, he will again come in association of criminal
persons or there is no reason to believe that release of the petitioner
is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice, therefore, the juvenile
petitioner may be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the
ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed
by the petitioner, it is not a fit case, where the petitioner be enlarged
on bail. Learned counsel for the State also referred to the report of
probationary officer of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, District
Korea. It is also submitted that although the merits of the case and
gravity of the offence would not be relevant for consideration of bail
application of a juvenile, but in the facts and circumstances of the
case releasing the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice,
as the victim is apprehending untoward incident from the petitioner,
therefore the petitioner is not entitled for release on bail.
4. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2025 issued notice to the victim
and her grandparents and in pursuance thereof she along with her
grandparents appeared on 21.04.2025 and they raised objection in
granting bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the petition as well as case diary.
6. Before considering the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate,
if Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 is taken into consideration and for
ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinunder:
"Section 12:(1) When any person accused of a
bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a
juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is
brought before a Board, such person shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other
law for the time being in force, be released on bail
with or without surety [or placed under the
supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of
any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so
released if there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that the release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice."
A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 by itself
gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a
matter of routine, in case an accused happens to be a juvenile and is
arrested, detained and is brought before the Board, such person
notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal
Procedure or under any other special law, which is in force, should
be released on bail. But at the same time, the later part of sub-
section (1) of Section 12 clearly envisages the fact that in a given
factual background of a case, if it appears to the Court that releasing
of said juvenile can bring him into association of the company with
which he landed himself in the remand home, or he may get exposed
to moral and psychological danger as also exposing himself to
physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in
the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that
upon his release from the observation home can lead to exposing the
juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may
refuse to release the juvenile on bail.
7. In order to examine, whether any of three exceptions of Section 12(1)
of the Act of 2015 is present in the case, social status report of the
juvenile petitioner is available in the case diary and from perusal of
the same, it appears that the social and economic condition of the
petitioner's family is satisfactory, the parents of the petitioner are
concerned, about future of the juvenile petitioner. His behaviour is
good with his inmates, he denied the commission of the offence, but
he was known to the victim. Cause of delinquency is lack of proper
guidance, his involvement in the offence is doubtful and due to family
dispute, he is being falsely implicated in the offence. It is clear from
the social status report of the petitioner that the same is self-
contradictory. It cannot be said that the parents have concerned
about the future of the petitioner as he committed an act depicting
criminal tendency. It cannot be said to be such an act done in a
sudden spurt of anger. The petitioner committed rape upon the minor
victim, took her towards jungle to wash her body and threatened her
not disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise he would kill her. The
numerous injuries have been found on the body of the victim
including injuries on her private part. This act of the petitioner shows
the criminal tendency in him. The manner in which, he acted and
committed the offence cannot be said to be the act done in spurt of
anger. The petitioner's parents are not concerned with the welfare of
child, who instead of insisting the petitioner to go to school, did not
take any care of him. In this situation, if the petitioner, who is a
juvenile in conflict with law is released from the observation home
and sent to the same social economic atmosphere, he would be
exposed to moral and psychological danger. Further, the risk of
juvenile committing such offence in future is also likelihood, because
the victim of sexual offence of such tender age are often not even
able to bring the offence to the notice of the other family members. I
do think the gravity of the offence is nowhere concerned with the
consideration of bail application of a juvenile in conflict with law, but
to consider the interest of justice, it does have some bearing.
8. Although the bail may be a rule, but under three circumstances, the
benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, where rape has been
committed on a minor victim, release of juvenile petitioner on bail
would definitely defeat the ends of justice. One of the exceptional
circumstances, wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile
that in case "the release would defeat the ends of justice". Justice is
not a one-way street, which is only to be appreciated from the point
of view of the juvenile in conflict with law. It is also a concept, which
would be alive both for the victim and for the society at large. The
manner in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed,
it cannot be said that the juvenile petitioner is immature, the nature of
offence and his conduct does come under the exception of "defeat
the ends of justice".
9. In the instant case, taking into consideration the report of the
probationary officer as well as the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on
bail, there is all chances of his exposing to moral as well as
psychological danger and his release would "defeat the ends of
justice".
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the order
passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned
Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of facts and law,
which does not warrant any interference at this juncture, and the
present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act
of 2015, but would fall within the exception carved out in the said
section.
11. Accordingly, no good case has been made out for allowing this
revision, calling for interference with the order under challenge.
12. The Criminal Revision being devoid of merits and it is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
