Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - ABC (Details Is Kept In Envelop) CRR No. 465 of 2025 ... Applicant/Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kanker, District - North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Applicant/Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Counsel for the applicant further relies upon the judgment of this Court in case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2011 (1) CGLRW- 140 wherein in para -6, this court has observed as under:- "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 3 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." 6. The said observations of the court was based upon the decisions rendered in case of Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2006 (1) CGLJ 305 as well as judgment delivered by the MP High Court in case of Rahul Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 Cri.LJ 214 7. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate that Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015 be taken into consideration, and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder: “Section 12 Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. —(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.” 8. 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 4 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. 9. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant being juvenile is already in observation home for more than 3 months, considering the fact that there is no past criminal record 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, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The order/judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge Kanker dated 27-02-2025 in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025 and the order dated 19-02-2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Kanker are set aside. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/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. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
Arguments
Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate. Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09-05-2025 1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 27-02-2025 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.08/2025 upholding the order dated 19-02-2025 passed by learned Court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Kanker in Criminal Case No.16/2025 rejecting the bail application of the applicant with respect to the Crime No.18/2025 registered at Police Station Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 351(2), 308(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 06-02-2025, the mother of the victim has lodged a report against the applicant who is a juvenile in conflict with law and other co-accused persons that the victim was sexually exploited by one of the Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 accused in which the present applicant and another co-accused helped and her photo/video was made viral in mobile phone. The police has registered the offence in which the applicant was taken into custody on 08-02-2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is aged about 17 years and the victim is also of the same age group. He further submits that apart from the present case, there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant. The applicant is in observation home since 08-02-2025 and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the Act, 2015’). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, she fairly submits that the social investigation report is in favour of the applicant and the present is first criminal case registered against him. 5.