1 2025:CGHC:40191 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 752 of 2025 1 - Abc (Accused In Observation Home) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/08/2025 This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, having additional charge of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) and Childrens Court, 2 Bilaspur, CG arising out of the FIR lodged on 14.02.2024 in Crime No. 176 of 2024 under Sections 377, and 457 IPC and 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act was rejected. 2. Earlier the revision has been filed on behalf of the child in conflict with law ‘XYZ’ through his natural guardian/father before this Court which has been rejected on merits vide order dated 19.06.2024 in CR.R. No. 335 of 2024. Subsequently, second revision was filed assailing the said order and on 28.11.2024, it was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the child in conflict with law through his natural guardian challenged this order before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7921/2025 and without entering into the merits of the case, upheld the order dated 28.11.2024, granting liberty to the applicant to seek bail afresh before the Juvenile Board. The Juvenile Board dismissed the bail application on the ground that there is no change in the circumstances and statements of five prosecution witnesses have been recorded. 3. Aggrieved by the above orders, this criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the same and to admit the child in conflict with law on bail. It is the case of prosecution that FIR was lodged by the mother of the victims alleging that she works in the Fancy store at Mungeli Naaka and resides with her two children and her brother. On the date of incident i.e.11.02.2024, she had gone to Bhanwar Taunk along with the staff and owner and came back to her house at about 12 O’clock and in the morning, she went to her workplace as usual. Later on, her 3 neighbour sent a video to her mobile of the incident and in the night, when she asked her children, they narrated that on 11.02.2024, in the evening at about 6-7.00 p.m. when their uncle went to buy vegetables, the applicant (juvenile) came to return the sickle and finding loneliness of the children, removed his pant, locked the door and committed unnatural sex with her daughters and thereafter he threatened them not to disclose to anyone or else he will beat them. On the basis of the said FIR, Crime No. 176/2024 for the offence under Sections 377 & 457 IPC and 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was registered against the applicant. 4. First and foremost contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile. The gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be taken as an obstacle or hindrance to refuse the bail to delinquent juvenile. It is contended that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act. In view of the above provisions, the 'child in conflict with law', who has been in custody for quite a long time deserves to be released on bail otherwise, the purpose of provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act shall stand defeated. It is also contended that care of the juvenile in a child care institution cannot be preferred over his care in his biological family. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the revisionist and submitted that specific allegation has been made against the revisionist and as per the social investigation report, there is a general assessment of his behavioural tendency 4 however, the manner of commission of crime and the nature thereof cannot be ignored while striking a balance between the demands of justice of either of the sides. Hence, it cannot be said that the nature of the crime, the manner or methodology applied, the extent of involvement and evidence available are of no relevance when judging the entitlement of a juvenile to bail in cases where heinous crimes are committed. The ends of justice is undoubtedly a meaningful phrase with multidimensional implications. The Courts are under obligation to address the concerns of both the sides and strike a delicate balance between the competing and often conflicting the demands of justice. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and their rival submissions and have gone through the order of the Juvenile Board as well as the Social Investigation Report. 7. In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhi Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyze the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated, eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly 5 planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focused on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the Western World which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western World. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-key basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian Society and its profile." 8. Similarly, in the matter of State of A.P. Vs. Bodem Sundara Rao, 1995 (6) SCC 230, the Apex Court has cautioned the Courts while dealing with the cases of sexual crime against women in the following words: "Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with the cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely." 9. In Madan Gopal Kakkad V. Naval Dubey and Another, 1992 SCR (2) 921, the Apex Court has held thus: 6 “Before parting with the judgment, with deep concern, we may point out that though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms.” 10. In nutshell, it can be inferred that the juvenile who was found to be aged below 14 years was found to have complicity in this frightful crime on the date of the occurrence. The manner, in which, the crime was committed and the nature thereof impels to draw a conclusion that in case, the juvenile is released on bail, he shall fall of in the same environs which most probably contributed towards his criminal bent of mind. 11. It is a case where the revisionist, though below the age of 18 years, has committed the gruesome crime of carnal intercourse with the minor victims, who are just 5 & 7 years old against the ordinary course of nature and prepared the video and circulated the same. About the factum of the incident, there is reasonable assurance at this stage, short of the charge being tested at the trial. The prosecution is consistent in the FIR lodged against him and the statements of the minor victims and their mother before the Magistrate. 12. In view of the above, it is true that the merits of the case or prima 7 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 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 which squarely attract and satisfy the last disentitling clause engrafted in Proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, which predicates that the release of the juvenile would occasion a “defeat of the ends of justice.” 13. In the case in hand, the revisionist by his action, if true, has put the society and its surroundings on alarm. No doubt, the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the juvenile/child in conflict with the law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser." His actions have led to a situation, where prima facie no child of tender years, and more than that the parents or the guardians of a young child, would feel safe during their daily routine, when there is nothing otherwise to call extra caution. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms. Thus, the trial court has rightly found him not at all entitled to bail. 14. For all the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the juvenile-child in conflict with law. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to 8 expedite the hearing and conclude the same at the earliest without getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.08.14 11:17:21 +0530