1 - Abc Nil 2 - Def (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Batauli District - Sarguja
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 320 of 2025 1 - Abc Nil 2 - Def (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The Applicant Is Filed Separately Under Sealed Envelope) --- Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Batauli District - Sarguja (C.G.) --- Respondent CRR No. 372 of 2025 Child In Conflict With Law Aged About 14 Years, 6 Months. ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Batouli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Applicants in both the Criminal Revisions (i.e. CRR No. 320 of 2025 and CRR No. 372 of 2025) For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Smt. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Ku mar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.24 19:18:42 +0530 2 22/04/2025 1. 2. Both these criminal revisions are arising out of same crime number and therefore, they are being heard and decided together. The Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2025 filed by the two juveniles and Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2025 filed by the third juvenile in conflict with law under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the Act of 2015’) against the impugned judgment dated 21.02.2025, passed by learned Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Surguja (Ambikapur), in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 was rejected and the order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur, District Surguja dated 13.02.2025, in Crime No. 15 of 2025, registered at police station Batauli, is affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants admittedly are juveniles and they are in observation home since 05.02.2025. It is further submitted that as per Section 12 of the Act of 2015, for the purpose of releasing a juvenile on bail, the gravity of the offence is not to be seen. It is also submitted that the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Appellate Court has dismissed the bail applications of the applicants considering the merits of the case, but the same would have no relevance while considering the bail application of the juveniles. They would also submit that there is no possibility that after releasing them on bail, 3 they will again come in association of known criminal persons, or there is no reason to believe that release of the applicants is likely to bring them into association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the juvenile applicants may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the applicants, it is not a fit case where the applicants be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel also referred to the report of probationary officer of the concerned District Juvenile Protection Unit, Ambikapur, District Surguja. She would also submit that although the merits of the case and gravity of the offence would not be relevant for consideration of bail application of a juvenile, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, releasing the applicants on bail would defeat the ends of justice, as the manner in which the juveniles along with other accused person committed the offence and the threat to the victim apprehending untoward incident from the applicants. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to release on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material annexed with the present revision as well as case diary. 4 6. Before considering the case of the applicants, it would be appropriate if Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinunder:- “Section 12:(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” A plain reading of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 by itself gives a clear indication that under the normal circumstances, as a matter of routine, in case an accused person happens to be a juvenile and is arrested, detained, and is brought before the Board, such person notwithstanding anything contained in either Code of Criminal Procedure or under any other special law, which is in force should be released on bail. But at the same time the letter part of sub-section (1) of Section 12 clearly envisages the fact that in a given factual background of a case if it appears to the Court that releasing of said juvenile can bring him into association of the 5 company with which he landed himself in the remand home, or he may get exposed to moral and psychological danger, as also exposing himself to physical danger, the juvenile may not be released. That means, in the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that upon his release from the observation home can lead to exposing the juvenile to both moral as well as psychological danger, the Court may refuse to release the juvenile on bail. 7. In order to examine whether any of three exceptions of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 is present in the case, social status report of the applicants was called for by this Court vide its order dated 20.03.2025 (in CRR No. 372 of 2025) and 07.04.2025 (in CRR No. 320 of 2025) and a copy of which is also placed by the State counsel at the time of hearing of the case in the present revision. 8. From perusal of the social status report of the applicants, it appears that the social and economic condition of the applicants’ family is satisfactory. Their behaviour was good with their inmates, they denied commission of offence, but they were known to each other. Cause of delinquency is lack of proper guidance. It is also reported in the social status report that they were not interested in studying. Their friends are of the same age group and elderly people also. It is clear from the social status report of the applicants that the same is self-contradictory. It cannot be said that the parents of the applicants have concern about the future of the applicants, as they committed the act depicting criminal tendency. It cannot be said to be such an 6 act done in a sudden spurt of anger. The allegation against the applicants that they committed unnatural sexual intercourse with the 03 minor victims repeatedly, shows their criminal tendency. The applicants’ parents are not concerned with the welfare of their child, who instead of insisting the applicants to go to school, did not take care of them. In this situation, if the applicants, who are juveniles in conflict with law are released from the observation home, and sent to the same social economic atmosphere, they would be exposed to moral and psychological danger. Further, the risk of the juveniles committing any other offence in future is also likelihood as the victim is apprehending untoward incident from the applicants. I do think the gravity of the offence is nowhere concerned with consideration of bail application of a juvenile in conflict with law, but to consider the interest of justice, it does have some bearing. 9. Although the bail may be a rule, but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, where such an offence of the present one has been committed, release of juvenile applicants on bail would definitely defeat the ends of justice. One of the exceptional circumstances, wherein the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile is that “in case, the release would defeat the ends of justice”. Justice is not a one-way street that it is only to be appreciated from the point of view of the juvenile in conflict with law. It is also a concept, which would be alive both for the victim and for the society at large. 7 10. In the instant case, taking into consideration the report of the probationary officer as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the status of the juveniles in conflict with law and co- accused, in whose association the applicants were, this Court is of the opinion that if the applicants are released on bail, there is all chances of their exposing to moral as well as psychological danger and their release would defeat the ends of justice. 11.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Appellate Court does not warrant any interference at this juncture, and the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, but would fall within the exception carved out in the said section. 12. Accordingly, no good case has been made out for allowing these two criminal revisions calling for interference with the order under challenge. 13. Both the criminal revisions (CRR No. 320 of 2025 and CRR No. 372 of 2025) being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge