Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:30697
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 552 of 2025
XYZ
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.07.04 17:21:16 +0530 For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL (Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/07/2025 1. Heard.
2. This revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against 2 the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Annexure A-
1), arising out of order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Presiding officer, Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Crime No.115/2024, Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) under Section 302/34 of IPC & Section 3(1)(d) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.04.2024 there was a Chathi program in the house of Sonal Dhruv and Rakesh Dhruv on the birth of their twin children in Gram Gandhirwadih. The deceased Durgesh along with Yuvraj Patel, Basant Nishad, Deva Vishwarkarma, and Krishna Kaiwart were playing music in the box and were dancing in the music. While dancing the conflict begin between Durgesh and Yuvraj, Basant, Deva and Krishna and a scuffle broke out between them. These four people took him to the shore and the fight started there. Meanwhile, Yuvraj stabbed Durgesh with knife in the stomach and he got injured and Durgesh started to shout "Bachao, bachao." Yuvraj, Basant, Deva and Krishna flee from there. The deceased reached to the house of one Panchu located nearby and called Vishnu from there and Vishnu took him to the hospital in the van of Sameer Bhardwaj but he died of his injuries before reaching to the hospital. On 20.04.2024 in connection with crime no. 115/2024 the 3 police arrested Deva and Krishna and the present applicant Basant Nishad along with Yuvraj Patel both Juvenile in conflict with law were sent to the Judicial remand. During the investigation the police prepared site map, statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the entire investigation Charge Sheet has been filed before the learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), where the case is pending.
4. The present applicant preferred an application for bail before the learned Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) which was rejected on 09.10.2024 against which an appeal under section 101 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2015 was preferred which was dismissed on 07.03.2025.
5. The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2025 preferred the instant application under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case, he is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He further submits that since the applicant is juvenile, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, he would have been released on bail but the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) as well as the 4 Juvenile Justice Board fell into error by rejecting his bail application. The learned Courts below erred in rejecting the bail application without following the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2015, the present applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the co-accused in the present crime in question who is also juvenile in conflict with law has already been enlarged on bail by this Hob'ble Court in CRR No. 1156 of 2024 vide order dated 20.01.2025. Therefore, from the above observation the present appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, 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.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the social investigation report of the applicant, it reveals that there is noting adverse against the applicant. Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 which provides for bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in 5 conflict with law. Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or 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 persons 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.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-
charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home 1[or a place of safety, as the case may be] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.
10. Looking to the involvement of the applicant in the present case and the 6 charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released from the concerned Observation Home.
11. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 07.03.2025 (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