XYZ (JUVENILE CONFLICT WITH LAW) v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
CRR/150/2025 · 2025-02-24
Shri Arvind Kumar Verma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7410 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7410 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:9463
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.150 of 2025 XYZ (Juvenile Conflict with Law) (In Observation Home )
... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. New Rajendra Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, PL
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board 24/02/2025
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.05/2024, arising out of order dated 10.12.2024 in Criminal Case No.474/2024 passed by the Principal VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.02.25 11:16:48 +0530
2 Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp Raipur in Crime No.378/2024, PS Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Brief facts of this case are that complainant Uday Singh lodged report in the police station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, inter alia alleging that on dated 28.09.2024 complainant was sitting at his shop at night and around 9:00 pm applicant who lives behind his shop came there and started saying why do you quarrel with my father, and started abusing him, he also threatened to kill him, and thereafter he took out a sharp knife and attacked the complainant due to which he got serious injuries. Therefore, FIR has been lodged u/s 296, 351(2), 109 of B.N.S. against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that both the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the bail application as also appeal filed by the applicant. He further contended that the learned courts below ought to have seen the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and also failed to appreciate the fact that there is no direct or clinching evidence against the applicant. Both the courts below have been completely ignored the provisions of Section-12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act.
The learned courts below did not considered the section-12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, section-12(1) of the Act, provides that when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or
3 appears or 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 person, provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. It is further contended that both the courts below have not considered the report of Probation officer, even in the report of the Probation officer does not indicate anything against the applicant, rather it says that at present applicant is studying, and the applicant's conduct and behavior is good and there is no previous complaint or any record against him. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure A/1) and grant bail to the applicant, in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the State-Respondent opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the order passed by the trial Court/Juvenile Court is just and proper needs no interference. 4
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the record, I have found that on the date of incident, complainant was sitting at his shop at night and around 9:00 pm applicant who lives behind his shop came there and a dispute has taken place and started abusing him, he also threatened to kill him, and thereafter he took out a knife and attacked the complainant due to which he got injuries. Further, on perusal of the Social Investigation Report, wherefrom it reveals that there is no previous antecedent against the applicant.
7. Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides as under :
“12. Bail of juvenile.-(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 or fit person] but he
5 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.”
8. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is allowed and the
order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) is hereby set aside and it is
directed that the applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian, in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, with an undertaking of his parents that he will take care of the applicant. The applicant shall appear before the concerned Board as and when directed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge Vasant