1 - Abc Nill v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, Korba, District Korba
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 380 of 2025 1 - Abc Nill ... applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For applicant
Legal Reasoning
“The scope and object of provision regarding grant of bail to a Juvenile as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act came up for consideration before the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat @ Bhrat & Another (supra), wherein it was held that the use of word "Shall" by the legislative provisions in the Section 12 of the Act is of great significance 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 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. It has also been held that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to the Juvenile and would be liable to be rejected only when it appears to the Board that either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing.” 8. The said observations of the court was based upon the decisions rendered in case of Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh2 as well as the judgment delivered by the MP High Court in case of Rahul Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3. 9. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if Section 12 (1) of the Act is of 2015 is taken into consideration, and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder: "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.” 1 2 3 2011 (1) CGLRW-140 2006 (1) CGLJ 305 2001 Cri.LJ 214 4 10. A plain reading of the said section 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 latter 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 the releasing of the said juvenile can bring him into the association of the 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. 11. In the present case, from perusal of the report of the Probation Officer is based upon the fact that the conduct of the appellant is good and he may assistance of his family members and nothing adverse has been reported by the probation officer. 12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant being a juvenile is already in observation home since 21.12.2024; also considering the nature of offence and the ratio of law led down in the matter of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar (Supra) and also keeping in mind the fact that if the applicant is released on bail, there is no chances of his coming into association with known bad company which could further expose him to moral as well as psychological danger, further it also appears that there was no criminal motive or intention on the part of the applicant, 5 this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.03.2025 is set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parent/guardian with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. amita (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.17 09:45:51 +0530
Arguments
: Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Res/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2025, the father and grand-father of the victim appeared through virtual mode from DLSA Korba and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. Their submissions are taken on record. 2. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 01.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025 by the learned Upper Session Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act) Juvenile Court Korba, 2 District- Korba (C.G.), upholding the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Korba rejecting bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 344 of 2024 registered at Police Station Pali, District Korba, for the offence punishable under Section 363,366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.12.2024, the victim has lodged written report against the applicant before the Police Station Pali, District Korba stating that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the applicant for the offence stated above. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that all the applicant admittedly is juvenile, aged about 17 years and 10 months. It is also submitted that the victim was also of the similar age group. He further submits that apart from this case, there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant. The applicant is in the observation home since 21.12.2024 and therefore he may be enlarged on bail taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, he fairly submits that social investigation report is in favour of the applicant and present is first criminal case registered against him. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the criminal revision as well as the case diary. 3 7. In the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this court in case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 wherein in para -6, this court has observed as under: