ABC ( Juvenile In Conflict With Law) v. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station - D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.02 18:11:56 +0530 2025:CGHC:29092 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 692 of 2025 ABC ( Juvenile In Conflict With Law) --- Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station - D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent CRR No. 698 of 2025 XYZ (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) --- Applicant Versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh through SHO, Police Station - D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 30/06/ 2025 Order on Board 1. The present Revisions are under Section 102 of the Juvenile 2 Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”). CRR No.692/2025 has been against the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Raipur in Criminal Appeal No. 189/2025. CRR No.698/ 2025 has been filed against order dated 03.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 209/2025. The appellate Court upheld the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicants filed u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2015 for grant of Bail in connection with Crime No. 499/2024 registered at P. S. DD Nagar, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(1), 192(2), 191(3), 3(5) of BNS were rejected. 2. Since both the revisions are arising out of the same crime
Decision
number, they are disposed of by this common order. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.12.2024 at about 9.30 – 10.00 p.m, the two juveniles ABC and XYZ along-with other adult accused namely Durgesh Sahu, Evan Kumar Sahu, Khamsingh Sahu, Dalendra Sahu picked a quarrel with the deceased Krishna Yadav and Sachin Dhanraj Badole and assaulted them with hands and fists and by stones, due to which, injured Krishna Yadav suffered grievous injuries on his head, forehead and other parts of the body and injured Sachin Dhanraj Badole suffered grievous injury in the lower part of his head. Both the injured persons were taken to Global Star 3 Hospital Raipur for treatment where the doctor on checking Krishna Yadav declared him brought dead whereas injured Sachin Dhanraj Badole died during treatment, thereby the offence has been committed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are juvenile in conflicting with law and they have been falsely roped in this case. Referring to the FIR, he submits that there are four other adult accused and the dispute arose between the deceased and the main accused persons and it cannot be said that the deceased persons died due to the assault made by these two juveniles. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicants and even the Social Status Reports would not go to show any adverse against them. Both the learned Courts have rejected the bail. Considering the provisions of the Act, 2015, the applicants may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there is eye witness to the incident and according to eye-witness account these two juveniles are also involved in the incident along with other four adult accused. She further submits that perusal of the social status report of the applicant shows that continuous counseling of the applicants is necessary and looking to the nature of the crime committed by the applicants, at this stage, they may not be released on bail. 6. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a 4 child alleged to be in conflict with law should 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. The only embargo created is that in case the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 7. The bail applications of the applicants were rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that the release of the applicants would tamper the prosecution witnesses and they would again commit the crimes, as such, their release will defeat the ends of justice. 8. The Appellate Court has rejected the appeal of the applicants on the ground that if the appellants are released on bail, the possibility of applicants’ exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger due to such release cannot be ruled out and it would further defeat the ends of justice. Looking to the nature of crime and the age of appellants, the Appellate Court held that the appellants have committed the murder of deceased and there is need to provide proper guidance to the juveniles in conflict with law considering their family background and it is possible to connect them with constructive activities based on resources available by keeping them in observation home. The Probation Officer also has the same suggestion. 9. Considering the observations made by the Juvenile Justice 5 Board and the Appellate Court as also the report of the Probation Officer and further considering the fact that it is the case of double murder wherein the applicants are also alleged to be involved alongwith 4 other major accused and looking to the age of both the juveniles, it is found that if the applicants are released on bail it is likely to bring them in moral and psychological danger and the object of justice would be defeated. 10. Consequently, these Revisions have no merits and are hereby dismissed. 11. However, considering the age of the applicants and the nature of the crime, it is directed that the Juvenile Justice Board should consider their case under Section 15 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Ss Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao