Chattisgarh High Court
Abc ( Juvenile Conflict With Law) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18198
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 414 of 2025
Abc ( Juvenile Conflict With Law) Nil.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
22/04/2025
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 impugned judgment dated 28.02.2025, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, in Criminal
Appeal No. 26 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the
applicant under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 was rejected and the
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Bilaspur dated 29.01.2025, in Crime No. 1264 of 2024, registered at
police station Sarkanda, Bilaspur is affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant
admittedly is a juvenile and he is in observation home since
18.10.2024. 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
dismissed the bail application of the applicant considering the merits
of the case, but the same would have no relevance while considering
the 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 known criminal persons, or there is no reason to
believe that release of the applicant 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 applicant may be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant on the
ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed
by the applicant, it is not a fit case where the applicant be enlarged
on bail. Learned counsel also referred to the report of probationary
officer of the concerned District Juvenile Protection Unit, Bilaspur.
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 applicant on bail would defeat the ends of
justice, as the manner in which the deceased was done to death by
the juvenile along with other accused persons and the threat to the
vicinity apprehending untoward incident from the applicant. The
applicant was in association with a known criminal having
antecedents of murder of his wife and when he undergone the entire
sentence, he murdered his brother and thereafter, he committed the
present offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to release on
bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the present revision as well as case diary.
5. Before considering the case of the applicant, 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.
6. 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
applicant was called for by this Court vide its order dated 01.04.2025
and a copy of which is also placed by the State counsel at the time of
hearing of the case in the present revision.
7. From perusal of the social status report of the applicant, it appears
that the social and economic condition of the applicant's family is
satisfactory. His behaviour was good with his inmates, he denied
commission of offence, but he was known to the co-accused
persons. Cause of delinquency is lack of proper guidance. It is also
reported in the social status report that he was not interested in
studying and used to flee from the school. His friends are of the
same age group and elderly people also, who are addicted persons.
It is clear from the social status report of the applicant that the same
is self-contradictory. It cannot be said that the parents of the
applicant have concern about the future of the applicant, 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 present applicant
along with other co-accused persons prepared a plan to commit
murder of the deceased and in furtherance thereof, they took the
deceased in an isolated place and committed his murder. One of the
co-accused is a habitual offender having charge of murder of his
wife, in which he was convicted and after completion of his entire
sentence, when he released from jail, he committed murder of his
brother. He was again sent to jail, but he was acquitted after giving
benefit of doubt in the year 2024 and thereafter the present incident
of murder of the deceased occurred. The applicant was remained in
association with the known criminal and the act of the applicant
shows the criminal tendency in him. The applicant's parents are not
concerned with the welfare of the child, who instead of insisting the
applicant to go to school, did not take care of him. In this situation, if
the applicant, who is 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 a juvenile committing any other offence in
future is also likelihood. 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.
8. 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
murder has been committed, release of juvenile applicant 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.
9. 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 co-accused persons, in whose
association the applicant was, this Court is of the opinion that if the
applicant 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 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.
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 merit, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
