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), Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 101 of VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.28 18:59:03 +0530 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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. 6 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. 7 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