1 - Xyz (Minor) v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through - S.H.O., P.S. - Pulgaon, Dist. - Durg
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.21 15:11:19 +0530 2025:CGHC:32575 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 473 of 2025 1 - Xyz (Minor) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through - S.H.O., P.S. - Pulgaon, Dist. - Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For the petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer For the : Mr. Ankush Soni along with Mr. Pawan complainant Kumar Kashyap, Advocates CRR No. 482 of 2025 1 - Xyz (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description of Applicant and Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope) ---Petitioner Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Out Post Jevra-Sirsa, Police Station- Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For the petitioners : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. 2. 3. 4. These are two revision petitions filed by two accused, who are juveniles under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015'). CRR.No.473 of 2023 & CRR No. 482/2025 have been filed against the orders dated 22.03.2025 and 04.02.2025 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 59/2025 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected both the appeals arising out of orders dated 07.03.2025 & 31.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board relating to Crime No. 475/2024 registered at P.S. Pulgaon, Distt. Durg whereby the bail applications of the present applicants have been rejected. Since both the revisions are relating to same crime number,
Decision
they are disposed of by this common order. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 03.12.2024, the complainant lodged a report that his brother Nitish Thakur received a call from his friend Sumit Yadav’s mobile at around 11.27 pm on his mobile number and he was asked to come quickly to Jevra street behind Dinesh Auto Parts as some boys 3 were stabbing his brother Sagar Thakur with a knife. Then the complainant and his brother Nitish Thakur rushed to the spot where their brother Sagar Thakur was lying soaked in blood. Injured sustained knife injuries on his chest, stomach and throat and he was hardly breathing. When the injured was asked what happened, he disclosed that the boys had assaulted him with a knife over a minor dispute. The complainant brought his brother to District Hospital Durg for treatment where the doctor after checking him declared dead. The boys are accused of killing the deceased Sagar Thakur by stabbing him with a knife and on the date of occurrence, the present applicants were juveniles. They filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the juveniles are in custody since 05.12.2024, neither the intention of murder nor any motive is clear from the charge sheet. They further submit that there is a contradiction in the statements of witnesses and looking to the long detention of the appellants, they may be enlarged on bail . They submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. They further submit that the 4 applicants had no criminal back-ground. It is further submitted that the orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. They further submit that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail, therefore, they may be extended benefit of bail. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submits that juvenile XYZ in CRR No. 473/2025 caused stab injury and at his instance, knife was seized from him whereas the juvenile in CRR No.482 of 2025 caught hold of the hands of deceased Sagar Thakur while the other juvenile was stabbing him. He further submits that the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the case diary shows that a named FIR has been lodged against the juveniles in conflict with law, for stabbing and killing Sagar Thakur. The deceased himself disclosed his family members about the particular boy as the assailant. According to the prosecution, during the murder, the juvenile boy attacked the deceased with knife and killed him. The medical report shows that as many as 7 stab wounds were found on the neck and chest of the deceased and an incised wound was found on the neck due to which the thyroid gland of the throat was cut which has 5 resulted in death. The type of injuries found on the body of the deceased prima facie shows that the murder was committed in gruesome manner. 8. Releasing juvenile boys who have committed a heinous crime like murder could be seen as a failure to uphold justice, especially if their release is found to be against the best interests of society and the victim's family. The Juvenile Justice Act aims to balance the need for rehabilitation of juveniles with the need for justice, but in cases of extreme violence, the "ends of justice" provision in the law can be invoked to deny the bail as their release would lead to public outcry and a feeling that justice has not been served. 9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revisions. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed. 10. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao