1 2026:CGHC:2872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1282 of 2019 Vidya Sagar Baghel S/o Ramji Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.), in Special Case No. 55/2019. By the said order, the applicant’s application filed under Section 27 read with Section 36(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012 was rejected. Through the said application, the applicant prayed that the matter be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for an inquiry into his age, contending that he was a minor on the date of the offence and, therefore, liable to be treated as a juvenile. The applicant further prayed that the case be sent for trial before the Juvenile Justice Board/Court in PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.21 13:09:55 +0530 2 accordance with law. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that on 10.04.2019, a First Information Report was lodged by the father of the victim, namely Prem Singh, alleging that he and his wife used to travel to Pune (M.H.) for labour work, during which period the victim generally stayed at home with her grandparents. On 08.04.2019, upon returning from Pune, the parents of the victim had to attend the wedding of a relative. After attending the wedding, when the parents returned home, they did not find the victim there. Upon enquiry, her grandparents informed them that the victim had left the house on 07.11.2018 and had not returned thereafter. On the next day, i.e., 09.04.2019, the victim returned home and narrated the entire incident to her parents. The victim informed her parents that she had been in a relationship with the applicant for a long time and that on 07.11.2018, the applicant came to her house and asked her to elope with him so that they could marry. Thereafter, the victim went with the applicant to his village, Mohtara, and subsequently both of them went to Kanpur (U.P.), where they stayed for some time. During their stay at Kanpur, the victim developed physical relations with the applicant and subsequently became pregnant. After some time, the victim returned to her parental home without informing the applicant. Thereafter, on the basis of her statement, an FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered as Crime No. 184/2019 at Police Station Bemetara. 3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR dated 10.04.2019, the applicant was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, the father of the applicant filed an application under Section 27 of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure read with Section 36(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara, contending that the applicant’s date of birth is 17.03.2001 and that he was below 18 years of age (17 years, 7 months, and 21 days) at the time of the alleged incident. It was further submitted that, being a juvenile, the applicant ought to have been sent to an Observation Home instead of being lodged in jail, as detention in prison with adult offenders would adversely affect him. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application, despite considering the applicant’s date of birth as reflected in the birth certificate and other relevant documents. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Court committed gross illegality by failing to properly consider the age of the applicant on the date of the alleged incident. On the basis of the birth certificate of the applicant and other relevant documents on record, the applicant was a minor at the relevant time. Therefore, after conducting a proper inquiry as required under law, the case ought to have been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. The learned Trial Court itself observed at one stage that, as per the applicant’s date of birth, he was 17 years of age. Despite this finding, the applicant was sent to jail instead of being placed in an Observation Home, as mandated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005. This action amounts to a clear violation of the well-settled principles of law governing juveniles. 5. Further, as per Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005, a “child” means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. The said provision squarely applies to the present 4 case and, considering the age of the applicant, he ought to have been sent to an Observation Home. 6. Moreover, under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005, in cases involving heinous offences allegedly committed by a child who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Juvenile Justice Board is required to conduct a preliminary assessment regarding the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences thereof, and the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed, and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with Section 18(3) of the Act. Thus, even on this count, the case of the applicant was required to be dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the order impugned, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the order of the trial Court that though on the date of incident i.e. 07.11.2018, the applicant was below 18 years of age, he cannot be treated as a juvenile, nor can the remand papers for investigation or any other proceedings be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, this is because it was a continuing offence until the victim returned to her home on 07.04.2019, therefore, it has been assumed that the accused/applicant committed the offence from 07.11.2018 to 07.04.2019 and, consequently, the accused/applicant cannot be considered a minor at the time of the offence. Thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind, the learned Additional Sessions Judge 5 (FTC), Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 in Special Case No. 55/2019, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 9. Accordingly, the Revision, being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti