Chattisgarh High Court
Child In Conflict With Law vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18196
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 320 of 2025
1 - Abc Nil
2 - Def (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The Applicant Is Filed
Separately Under Sealed Envelope)
--- Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Batauli District - Sarguja
(C.G.)
--- Respondent
CRR No. 372 of 2025
Child In Conflict With Law Aged About 14 Years, 6 Months.
---Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicants in both the : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
Criminal Revisions (i.e. CRR
No. 320 of 2025 and CRR No.
372 of 2025)
For Respondent/State : Smt. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
22/04/2025
1. Both these criminal revisions are arising out of same crime number
and therefore, they are being heard and decided together.
2. The Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2025 filed by the two juveniles and
Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2025 filed by the third juvenile in conflict
with law under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act of 2015') against
the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025, passed by learned
Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court
(POCSO Act), Surguja (Ambikapur), in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of
2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants under Section
101 of the Act of 2015 was rejected and the order of rejection of bail
by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, District Surguja
dated 13.02.2025, in Crime No. 15 of 2025, registered at police
station Batauli, is affirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants
admittedly are juveniles and they are in observation home since
05.02.2025. 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
dismissed the bail applications of the applicants considering the
merits of the case, but the same would have no relevance while
considering the bail application of the juveniles. They would also
submit that there is no possibility that after releasing them on bail,
they will again come in association of known criminal persons, or
there is no reason to believe that release of the applicants is likely to
bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them
to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would
defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the juvenile applicants may be
released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants on the
ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed
by the applicants, it is not a fit case where the applicants be enlarged
on bail. Learned counsel also referred to the report of probationary
officer of the concerned District Juvenile Protection Unit, Ambikapur,
District Surguja. She would also submit 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 present case, releasing the applicants on bail
would defeat the ends of justice, as the manner in which the juveniles
along with other accused person committed the offence and the
threat to the victim apprehending untoward incident from the
applicants. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to release on
bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the material annexed with the present revision as well as case diary.
6. Before considering the case of the applicants, 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 person 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 letter 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
applicants was called for by this Court vide its order dated
20.03.2025 (in CRR No. 372 of 2025) and 07.04.2025 (in CRR No.
320 of 2025) and a copy of which is also placed by the State counsel
at the time of hearing of the case in the present revision.
8. From perusal of the social status report of the applicants, it appears
that the social and economic condition of the applicants' family is
satisfactory. Their behaviour was good with their inmates, they
denied commission of offence, but they were known to each other.
Cause of delinquency is lack of proper guidance. It is also reported in
the social status report that they were not interested in studying.
Their friends are of the same age group and elderly people also. It is
clear from the social status report of the applicants that the same is
self-contradictory. It cannot be said that the parents of the applicants
have concern about the future of the applicants, as they committed
the act depicting criminal tendency. It cannot be said to be such an
act done in a sudden spurt of anger. The allegation against the
applicants that they committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the
03 minor victims repeatedly, shows their criminal tendency. The
applicants' parents are not concerned with the welfare of their child,
who instead of insisting the applicants to go to school, did not take
care of them. In this situation, if the applicants, who are juveniles in
conflict with law are released from the observation home, and sent to
the same social economic atmosphere, they would be exposed to
moral and psychological danger. Further, the risk of the juveniles
committing any other offence in future is also likelihood as the victim
is apprehending untoward incident from the applicants. I do think the
gravity of the offence is nowhere concerned with consideration of bail
application of a juvenile in conflict with law, but to consider the
interest of justice, it does have some bearing.
9. Although the bail may be a rule, but under three circumstances, the
benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, where such an offence of
the present one has been committed, release of juvenile applicants
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 is that "in case, the release would defeat the ends of
justice". Justice is not a one-way street that it 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.
10. In the instant case, taking into consideration the report of the
probationary officer as well as the facts and circumstances of the
case, as also the status of the juveniles in conflict with law and co-
accused, in whose association the applicants were, this Court is of
the opinion that if the applicants are released on bail, there is all
chances of their exposing to moral as well as psychological danger
and their release would defeat the ends of justice.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding
given by learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned
Appellate Court 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.
12. Accordingly, no good case has been made out for allowing these two
criminal revisions calling for interference with the order under
challenge.
13. Both the criminal revisions (CRR No. 320 of 2025 and CRR No. 372
of 2025) being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
