Nafr High Court
Case Details
SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.09.17 10:23:51 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:47608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1052 of 2025 1 - Abc (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) (Description Of Applicant And The Name Of Legal Guardian Is In Closed Envelope). versus ... Applicant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For Applicant For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A. : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 16/09/ 2025 Order on Board 1. The present Revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dhamtari, district - Dhamtari, C.G. in Criminal Appeal Case No. 34/2025, upholding the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) rejecting the bail 2 application of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 66/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 117(2), 109(1), 151(2), 190 read with Section 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Preventiono f Atrocities) Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Sumit Sahu filed a report stating that on March 6, 2025, he and his friend Tumendra Lahare were at a pond near a temple located in Housing Board Colony, Hatkeshar, Dhamtari. At that time, 5-6 boys from Hatkeshar Ward arrived and started abusing Tumendra Lahare in the name of his mother and sister. They assaulted Tumendra Lahare with a baseball bat and sticks, and dragged him. Seeing the situation, complainant Sumit Sahu got scared and ran away from there. Besides the applicants, other accused persons including Yuvraj Thakur, Jitendra alias Jeetu Nishad, Ashwani Dhruv, Balram Nishad, Khilesh Meenpal, Balram Sahu alias Joga, Shravan Dhruv, Rudra Kumar, Manish Sahu, and Ashwani Dhruv were also present there. They together assaulted Tumendra Lahare with sticks, bamboo poles, and fists, abusing him with abusive words and threatening not to leave him alive. The complainant Sumit Sahu gave information about the incident to Dhamtari Police Station, based on which a case was initially registered against Yuvraj Thakur, Jeetu Nishad, Manish Sahu and the present applicant under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS. Later, an offence under a Special Act was added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant 3 has no criminal past, is innocent, and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that nine major co-accused persons have already been granted bail, and a juvenile co-accused was also granted bail by the trial court. The applicant has been in the observation home since 18.03.2025 and the social status report is also not adverse to the applicant. He further submits that there is no likelihood that his release would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger. The learned court below rejected the bail in a mechanical manner. Considering the provisions of the Act of 2015, the applicant may be released on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for the grant of bail and submits that there is a named FIR against the present applicant, and a bamboo stick has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a 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. 4. 5. 6. Be that as it may, a social status report was submitted by the 4 concerned Probation Officer. A bare perusal of it would show that the conduct of the applicant is not only good, but he is living in disciplinary manner, and overall the same is not adverse to the present applicant with no negative comments. Besides, it does not indicate anywhere in the said report that the release of the applicant on bail would bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. The nine major co-accused and one juvenile have already granted bail. In view thereof, none of the grounds are thus available to reject the bail application of the applicant. The trail Court as well as appellate Court have, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the application de hors the mandate of the Act, 2015. 7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside, and the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by the parents/guardian with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of the said guardian. Along with the bail bond, copies of the Aadhar Card and coloured Post Card full size photo shall also be submitted by the applicant as well as by the surety, which shall be duly verified by the trial Court. 8. It is observed that the person stands as surety will furnish an 5 undertaking that the applicant shall not come in contact with any bad element and in case, if he is found to be indulged in any unlawful act, the surety/father of the applicant shall inform to the concerned Police Station. 9. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this order be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Judge Sourabh P. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)