1 - ABC (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Station Lormi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 500 of 2025 1 - ABC (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope) ... applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For applicant For Respondent(s) : :
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 1 2011(1) CGLRW-140 3 three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing. 6. Before considering the case of the applicant, it would be appropriate if Section 12 (1) of the Act 2015 is 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 decisionogical danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” 7. 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 the releasing of the said juvenile can bring him into the association of the company with which he landed himself in the 4 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. 8. 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 Nine 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. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the court below 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 applicants as and when directed, the applicants shall be given in custody of the said guardian. 10. The record of the trial Court be immediately sent back along with the copy of this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.05.15 10:30:57 +0530
Arguments
Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 09.05.2025. 1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 10/02/2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge/ Juvenile Court, Mungeli, Dist- Mungeli in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2025, whereby the order dated 11/12/2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli in Crime No. 276/2024, the application under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been 2 rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant admittedly is a juvenile, aged about 15 years. 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 03/08/2024 and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act,2015. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail. However, he would submit that the report submitted by the concerned probation officer is in favour of the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. In the matter of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 wherein in para-6, this Court has observed as under:-