Chattisgarh High Court
A B C (Minor) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 56 of 2022
ABC (Minor) (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The Applicant
Is Filed Separately Under Sealed Envelope) ----Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mrs. Richa Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 17.03.2022
1. This Criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2015") is directed against the judgment dated 04-2-2022 passed by the Learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC Additional Charge) Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2022 upholding the order dated 25-11-2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) rejecting the bail application of the applicant/juvenile in connection with Crime No. 512/2021 registered at Police Station- Khamtrai, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the ofence under Section 302/34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Komal Sahu @ Lalu Sahu was the brother of complainant namely Birendra Sahu. On 22-8-2021 Komal Sahu did not come back to his house. On 23-8-2021 complainant Birendra Sahu was informed by one person stating that his brother was found Page 2 of 4 lying dead near the house of Pukhraj Singh and unknown person killed and threw him. The complainant after having received the information about the death of his brother went to Police Station and lodged report in Police Station, on the basis of which Police conducted investigation and after investigation ofence under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act has been registered before the police Station. The charge-sheet has been fled against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no evidence that the applicant has committed the aforesaid ofence. She would further submit that 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. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that grant of bail to a juvenile is rule and exceptional circumstances under which, it could be rejected are under those which have been exhaustively enumerated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015 itself. Unless those grounds are made out, a juvenile is required to be granted bail. It is further contended that in the present case, report of the Probation Officer fled before the Juvenile Justice Board does not indicate anywhere that his release would bring him in association with any known criminals or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise Page 3 of 4 defeat the ends of justice. It is contended that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate authority have rejected the bail application by mechanically applying the aforesaid clauses, though bereft of any material. Counsel for the applicant would also submit that the applicant is in observation home since 24-8-2021 and he has completed more than seven months in custody, therefore, he may be extended beneft of bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justifed and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act does not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be set aside.
5. The provisions regarding grant of bail to a juvenile as per Section 12 of the Act, clearly shows that the legislature has used the word "shall" in the said Section with great stress and with somewhat mandatory force which in other words means ordinarily irrespective of the nature of ofence whenever a juvenile applies for bail he should be released on bail. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jaleshwar Barman @ Dadu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRR No.963/2016) and Shrawan Bhagat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRR No. 67/2014) aggregatively discussed on Section 12 and it is held that use of word "shall" by the legislative provisions in Section 12 of the Act is of great signifcance and which raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that ordinarily the board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the juvenile shall not be so Page 4 of 4 released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section also uses the word "shall" imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the Board. This court vide its order dated 18-1-2022 has called for the case diary as well as the status report from the concerned Probation Officer, Government Rehabilitation Centre, Camp Mana, Raipur and in pursuance of the said direction, a report has been submitted which does not indicate that there is a chance of in contact with the persons having criminal antecedents. The status report further shows that the general condition of the family of the applicant/juvenile is normal, he is a school going student and there is no adverse report against him.
6. On perusal of the record, I do not fnd any reasonable ground having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Police Authorities in respect of the so called threat of the juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or come in the company of known criminal.
7. In view of the aforesaid consideration, the impugned order dated 4-1-2022 could not be sustained and is therefore, set aside. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, by the parents or guardians of the applicant, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board, as and when directed.
8. The revision is accordingly allowed . Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju