1231 NAFR XYZ (Details Of The v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 347 of 2025 2025:CGHC:1231 NAFR XYZ (Details Of The Applicant/ Child In Conflict With Law In Close Envelope) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
In the light of judgment passed by this Court in MCRCA No. 549 of 2016 (Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 03.02.2017, the instant bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS is maintainable. Hence, this Court proceeds to hear the matter on its merit. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 21.02.2025 an explosion occurred in the washroom of Saint Vincient Paloti School Mangla Chowk and a student of class 4 B was injured in the explosion and was immediately admitted to hospital for the treatment. On the investigation of the incident, it was found that the present applicant/child in conflict with law (XYZ) along with other child in 3 conflict with law had kept sodium (chemical substance) in the washroom, which exploded when it came in contact with water. On the basis of the oral complaint of the principal, Saint Vincent Paloti School, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, crime was registered against the applicant/child in conflict with law (XYZ) in crime no. no. 189/2025 under section 124(1) of B.N.S. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. registered against the applicant/ child in conflict with law is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The statements of the applicant and other children have been taken by the police in police uniform inside the school premises, which is contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Ideal Rules 2016. Thus, the investigation conducted by the Civil Line Police Station is completely void in method and facts. On the day of the incident, 21.02.2025, the School Management had detained the applicant/ child in conflict with law and other children in a closed room in the Principal's room for about 7 hours and the children were beaten up. The applicant/ child in conflict with law and other children were disturbed by the above things and on the date of the incident, also the Civil Line Police Station came in police uniform and interrogated the applicant/ child in conflict with law and other children, due to which the applicant/ child in conflict with law and other children became extremely frightened. 6. He further argued that on the incident dated 21.02.2025, the statement was taken by the School Management by beating and threatening the applicant/ child in conflict with law and other 4 children and the above statement was video recorded through mobile phone, all such actions are tainted and not acceptable under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The incident took place on 21.02.2025 when the applicant/ child in conflict with law came out after using the toilet. After that, the victim girl went to the toilet room to use the toilet, the sound of explosion was heard by the applicant/ child in conflict with law also, upon which the applicant/ child in conflict with law herself ran towards the toilet along with other children and returned and was frightened after seeing the condition of the victim girl. It is not proper to hold the applicant/ child in conflict with law involved in the above crime merely on the basis that the applicant/ child in conflict with law had used the toilet before the victim girl. As such, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, the age of the applicant at present i.e. 13 years and also the material available in case dairy, thus without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – XYZ, on executing a 5 personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) She should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) She should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) She should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) She should not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal
Arguments
: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.03.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 189/2025 registered at Police Station – Civil Line Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 124(1) of the BNS. 2. On a pointed query being made from the learned counsel for the 2 applicant and respondent / State regarding the maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant, who is a juvenile aged about 13 years for the grant of anticipatory bail in the present case, it is stated by them that there is a judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in MCRCA No. 549 of 2016 (Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 03.02.2017, whereby it has been held that the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (now 482 of the BNSS) is maintainable. Learned State counsel has further pointed out about the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, where the issue in question is also pending adjudication in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12659/2023 arising out of the judgment and order dated 04.09.2023 in SBCRMBA No. 9944/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur as there are different views of the High Court on the same. 3.