Abc Nil v. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Police Statio
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.01 10:17:00 +0530 2025:CGHC:28117 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 572 of 2025 Abc Nil ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Police Station Janjgir District- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner For the State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. This revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is filed against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa in Criminal Appeal No.41/2025 whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the applicant and confirmed the order dated 05.03.2025 in Crime No.127/2025 passed by 2 the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa 2. The applicant had preferred application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, before Juvenile Justice Board Janjgir Distr Janjgir Champa, which has been rejected vide order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Crime No.127/2025. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 05.03.2025, the applicant preferred appeal u/s 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act before the Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the juvenile applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2025. 3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Shivam Pathak has lodged report alleging that on 22.02.2025 at about 5 p.m, he along-with his friend Devendra Suryavanshi had gone to Janjgir Champa and seeing them at Netaji Chowk , his friend Rahul Thakur started abusing them. When the complainant reached Kacheri Chowk and stopped their vehicle, then the present applicant and other accused Rahul Thakur, Mukesh and another came on motorcycle from behind and while abusing him in the name of his sister and mother hit them, due to which, the complainant and his friend fell down from motorcycle. When the complainant started running towards Kera Road, then the present applicant alongwith co-accused Rahul Thakur Mukesh and others chased and caught him at old bus-stand and by threatening to life hit him by hands and fists and belt, as a result of which, the complainant sustained injuries on both his hands and legs. At the same time, his friend Devendra Kashyap ran away towards Kera Road. During the 3 investigation, the present applicant was interrogated and his memorandum statement was recorded wherein he admitted to have caused the incident along with other accused. Thereafter, the police has registered offence against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 296, 351(2), 115(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a juvenile in conflict and no incriminating material is available against him to connect him with the crime in question. He submits that the applicant has neither assaulted the injured nor committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the complainant sustained injuries due to the assault made by the other accused and not by the present applicant. He further submits that on the basis of his memorandum, only a belt was seized from him. It is further submitted that as per the medical report, the injuries suffered by the complainant are simple in nature. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.02.2025, charge sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of his release would bring him into bad association or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and both the learned courts below have rejected the bail in mechanical manner. He further submits that looking to the custody period, the applicant may be released on bail by allowing this criminal revision. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the applicant has assaulted the victim along-with other accused by hands and fists and belt. She submits that the applicant is a habitual offender having history 4 of criminal antecedents. She submits that as per the report given by the concerned Police Station which was part of case diary, there are 3 cases already registered against him. One case was registered in the year 2023 vide Crime No.35/2016/2023 for the offence u/s 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC and two cases were registered in the year 2024 vide Crime Nos. 136/504/2024 & 137/505/2024 for the offence under section 392/34 of IPC. Therefore, looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the applicant should not be released on bail. 6. The Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application on the ground that if the juvenile is released on bail, he may fall into bad association and thought it appropriate to keep the applicant under the protection home. 7. The learned appellate Court has observed that according to the social report, the bad company of the child has been stated to be the main reason for the crime and in the past also, the benefit of bail has been given to the applicant in two cases. Under the circumstances, the appellate Court took note of the fact that the juvenile offendor along with the co-accused, has tried to kill the injured by assaulting him, which is a crime of very serious nature and further looking to the antecedents of the applicant, rejected the appeal. 8. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 prescribes the conditions for granting bail to a juvenile. It mandates that a juvenile should be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that (i) their release would expose them to association with known criminals (ii) their release 5 would expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger and (iii) their release would defeat the ends of justice. 9. It is settled law that while considering the bail, the Court will assess the juvenile's past conduct (antecedents) to determine if any of the above conditions are met. If the court finds that the juvenile's release would be detrimental, it can reject the bail application, even if the juvenile is a minor. 10. In the present case, considering the social status report and the past conduct (antecedents), the appellate Court has held that if the juvenile is released on bail, the possibility of juvenile coming in contact with known criminals or falling in bad association cannot be ruled out and the said observation cannot be said to be unsustainable. 11. Considering the criminal antecedents of the juvenile and further the overall nature of the crime, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the appellate Court warranting interference in this revision. 12. Accordingly, this revision has no merits and is hereby dismissed. However, considering that the applicant is juvenile in conflicting with law and the nature of crime, the Juvenile Justice Board shall consider the case of applicant u/s 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao