1 - ABC Nil v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 311 of 2025 1 - ABC Nil --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamhardih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer CRR No. 415 of 2025 1 - XYX (Juvenile Conflict With Law) Nil 2 - ABC (Juvenile Conflict With Law) Nil ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Khamardih, District- Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. Both these Criminal Revisions are arising out of the same Crime Number and therefore they are being heard and decided together. 2. The Criminal Revision No. 311/2025 has been filed by the petitioner (name of the petitioner shown in the cause title of the appellate court’s order) against the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Cr.A. No. 87/2025 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Act 2015’) was rejected and the order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur, dated 23.01.2025 in Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station- Khamardih, Riapur is affirmed. 3. The Criminal Revision No. 415/2025 filed by the petitioners (name of the petitioners are mentioned in the appellate court’s orders) against the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, in Cr.A No. 90/2025 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Act 2015’) was rejected and the order of rejection of bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur, dated 23.01.2025 in Crime No. 11/2025 registered at Police Station- Khamardih, Raipur is affirmed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the petitioners admittedly are juvenile and they are in observations home since 04.1.2025. It is further submitted that as per Section 12 of the 3 Act of 2015, for the purpose of releasing the juveniles 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 the learned appellate Court have dismissed the application for bail on merits of the case but the merits of the case would be of no relevance while considering the bail application of the juveniles. He would further submit that the petitioners stay in observation home would affect their future prospect. There is no possibility that after releasing them on bail, they will again come in association of criminal persons, or there is no reason to believe that release of the petitioners is likely to bring them into association with any known criminals, or expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release to defect the ends of justice. Therefore, the juveniles petitioners may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that taking into consideration the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, it is not a fit case where the petitioners be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the State also referred to the report of the concerned observation home. He would further 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 petitioners on bail would defeat the ends of justice as the victim party is apprehending untowards incident from the petitioners therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for releasing on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition as well as case diary. 4 7. Before considering the case of the petitioners, 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 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 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 releasing of said juvenile can bring him into 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. That means, in the event the circumstances surrounding the juvenile shows that upon his release from the observation 5 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. 8. In order to examine whether any of three exceptions of Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 is present in the case, social status report of the petitioners were called for by this Court vide its order dated 07.02.2025 & 01.04.2025 respectively, and the learned State counsel placed a copy of their social status report dated 31.03.2025 for perusal of the present revision. 9. From perusal of the social status report of the petitioners, it appears that the social and economic condition of the petitioners’ family is satisfactory, the parents of the petitioners are concerned about future of the juvenile petitioners. Their behaviour are good with their inmates, they are denied commission of offence, but they were known to the victim. Cause of delinquency is lack of proper guidance. Their involvement in the offence is doubtful. It is clear from the social status report of the petitioners that the same is self contradictory. It cannot be said that the parents of the juveniles have concern about future, as they committed an act depicting criminal tendency. It cannot be said to be such an act done in a sudden spurt of anger. The petitioners tried to commit loot of a mobile phone from the complainant at about 12 in the night and when the complainant tried to protest all the juveniles in conflict in law started assaulting him by knife which they were having in their pocket. They repeatedly given blows of the said knife on various parts of his body by which he received multiple injuries on his body. The manner in which they acted and committed the offence, cannot be said to be the act done in spurt of anger. The petitioner’s parents, are not concerned with welfare of the child, who instead of insisting the petitioners to goes to school, did not take any care of them. Even they are 6 roaming together at about 12 in the night without any objection of their parents. In this situation, if the petitioners, who are the 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 dangers. Further, the risk of juveniles committing such offence in future is also likelihood. 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. 10. Although the bail may be a rule but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to a juvenile, where the alleged incident has been committed to the complainant, release of juvenile petitioners 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 which 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 complainant and for the society at large. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, it cannot be said that the juvenile petitioners are immature, the nature of offence and the manner in which it has been committed, their conduct does comes under the exception of “defeat the ends of justice”. 11. In the instant case, taking into consideration the report of the Probationary Officer, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners 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”. 7
Decision
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the finding given by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, as well as the learned Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of the facts as well as law which does not warrant any interference at its juncture, the present case does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act 2015 but would fall within the exception carved out in the said Section. 13. Accordingly, no good case has been made out for allowing these revisions calling for interference with the order under challenge. 14. Both these Criminal Revisions being devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.30 11:28:51 +0530 Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE