1 2025:CGHC:5925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1026 of 2024 1 - A B C (Details Are Kept In Envelop) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kanker District- North Baster Kanker, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Neeraj Sharma, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ) Order on Board 31/01/2025 The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10/2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanker North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), whereby the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 27/2024 by the Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur dismissing the bail application of the present applicant. 2 2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused, who is juvenile. The prosecution story, in brief, is complainant/father of the victim lodged a report at police outpost Kacche alleging that his daughter aged about 16 years is pregnant and on being enquired, she informed that the accused liked her and on the pretext of marriage, on several occasions, she was subjected to sexual intercourse. On the basis of the said report, Zero FIR was registered and thereafter Crime No. 116/2024 was registered at police station Bhanupratappur under Section 376 IPC and 4 &6 of the POCSO Act. The juvenile filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 31.07.2024 by giving a finding that the offence was grievous in nature and was sent to the observation home. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in custody 2.06.2024 and therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail. 3 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the orders passed by both the Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is true that in the case of a child who is in conflict with law, approach of the court in the matter of grant of bail with or without surety should be liberal and pragmatic but then the Court is also required to see that such release of juvenile may not expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. This apart, the Court is also required to record its satisfaction that release of a child in conflict with law is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The law mandates that normally in such matters it would not be appropriate to keep the juvenile in confinement but then it is also desirable that the court is required to see prima facie criminal delinquency of a child in conflict with law. 7. It might be true that both the Courts 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 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 revisionist, though below the age of 18 years, had ravished a very young victim, who is only sixteen years on the promise of marriage and she became pregnant. 4 8. In the present case, 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 reckoning 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. 9. On perusal of the record including the social status report, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, and the report of the probationary officer is also indicative that there are great chances that he will again come under the influence of other accused persons. In the case in hand it shows that the revisionist by his action, if true, has put the society and its surroundings on alarm. In the opinion of this Court, it is a case where release of the child in conflict with law would lead to ends of justice being defeated. 10. In view of above, looking to the age of the juvenile who is below 18 years, who had ravished the minor girl on the promise of marriage and she became pregnant, it cannot be said that the revisionist was unaware of the 5 act which he is doing and consequences thereof. That being so, a minor may not be a circumstance in favour of the revisionist for grant of bail. Since the victim is a minor girl the consent, as alleged, is also of no worth and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, releasing the applicant on bail would defeat the ends of justice and therefore no case for bail in favour of the revisionist is made out. 9. Consequently, the revision fails and is herby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.14 17:26:59 +0530