Chattisgarh High Court
A (Juvenile Inconflict With Law) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2022
Author: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Bench: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 408 of 2021
A (Juvenile inconflict with Law) S/o (as per Section 74 of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015), Aged About P
Years (Minor)- Through natural guardian Father namely Radheshyam
Sahu, S/o Ramratan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Majgaon,
Police Station Dadhi, Tahsil and District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh),
District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station -
Dadhi, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant - Shri Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate.
For State/Non-applicant - Shri Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
17-03-2022
1.Heard.
2. This revision petition has been brought against the order dated 17-08- 2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2020 by the Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (FTC)/Child Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh dismissing the appeal filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act, 2015') by the applicant.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the earlier revision petition, CRR No.639/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19-10- 2020. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a juvenile in conflict with law, he is in detention since about 1 year and 9 months. It is mentioned in the impugned order that, the applicant requires custodial care and proper education on the basis of the report of the probation officer, even then the learned Child Court held otherwise and rejected the appeal. Hence, it is prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on bail.
-2-
4. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the submission and submits that the applicant has committed heinous offence regarding which there is statement in dying declaration of the deceased against him. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
6. Considered on the submissions. According to the report of the probation officer, it had been the first offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant and also that the applicant needs parental control. The report also mentions that the parents of the applicant want to take him in their custody. Taking into consideration the provision under Section 12 of the Act, 2015, I am of this view that the present case does not appear to be a case of exception in which the bail should have been refused to the applicant. Therefore, I am of this view that this revision petition is fit to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by natural guardian father of the applicant with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural guardian father.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil