1 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law Through Natural Guardian Father (Details Of The v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Amanaka, Dist
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:10621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1427 of 2024 1 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law Through Natural Guardian Father (Details Of The Applicant Is Provided In An Envelope In Compliance Of Section 74 Of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 2 - Juvenile In Conflict With Law Through Natural Guardian Father (Details Of The Applicant Is Provided In An Envelope In Compliance Of Section 74 Of The Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Amanaka, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
required to see prima facie criminal delinquency of a child in conflict with law. 7. It might be true that both the Courts have not undertaken a careful exercise by evaluating the social investigation report while forming their opinion on the first of the two dis-entitling parameters under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, that is to say, the prospect of release bringing the child in conflict with into association with some known criminal or exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger. But, that does not end the matter. It is a case where the revisionist, though below the age of 18 years, have committed the murder of the deceased who is the father and uncle of the applicants after giving ransom to the other co-accused juveniles. 8. In the present case, it is true that the merits of the case or prima facie tenability of the charge, like an adult, is not entirely decisive to the fate of the bail plea. At the same time, it is not altogether irrelevant. The gravity of the charge, manner of its perpetration, circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, its immediate and not so immediate impact on the society at large and the locality, in particular, besides its impact on the aggrieved family, are all matters to be taken into reckoning while judging a juvenile's bail plea. All these factors are relevant under the last dis-entitling clause postulated under the proviso 5 to Section 12(1) of the Act, which says that release of the juvenile would ''defeat the ends of justice'. After all ''defeat the ends of justice' is not a word of art. It has been thoughtfully introduced by the legislature to arm the Court with a right to overcome an otherwise absolute right to bail, where in the totality of the circumstances, release on bail would adversely impact the law and order and the equilibrium of an ordered society. 9. On perusal of the record including the social status report, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court, and the report of the probationary officer is also indicative that there are great chances that they will again come under the influence of other accused persons. In the case in hand it shows that the revisionists by their action, if true, has put the society and its surroundings on alarm. In the opinion of this Court, it is a case where release of the children in conflict with law would lead to ends of justice being defeated. 10. In view of above, looking to the age of the juveniles who are aged about 16 years, had committed the murder of their uncle and father by giving contract to kill, it cannot be said that the revisionists were unaware of the act which they are doing and consequences thereof. That being so, a minor may not be a circumstance in favour of the revisionists for grant of bail. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, releasing the applicants on bail would defeat the ends of justice and therefore no case for bail in favour of the revisionists is made out. 9. Consequently, the revision fails and is herby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.05 16:37:53 +0530
Arguments
: Shri Hemant Kesarwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/03/2025 The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 2 'the Act 2015') against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.380/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC ), Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the appeal arising out of order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 294/2024 by the Principle Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur dismissing the bail application of the applicants/juveniles. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused, who are juveniles. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.05.2024, information has been recieved at police station that dead body of unknown person was found at J.P.Garden, near the culvert, Tatiband and after merg inquiry, the deceased was identified as Kalyan Yadav @ Lallu, resident of Kushalpur, Goverdhan Chowk, Raipuyr. After postmortem examination, the doctor has opined that deceased died on account of injury on the head and that the death was homicidal in nature and report was lodged against unknown person under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, it was known that there was some dispute between the in-laws of the deceased and he was residing separately. It is alleged that son of the sister-in-law of the deceased and son of the deceased with the help of Suraj Choudhary @ Macchi and Lavpreet Singh @ Lala Sakinan, Khursipar Bhilai after hatching conspiracy and paying ransom, committed the murder of Kalyan Yadav and threw the dead body in the culvert (naala). The weapon of offence-knife, one chunk of cement grit the vehicle used in the commission of the offence were seized from different places. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 126/2024 was registered at police station Amanaaka under Section 302 IPC and FIR was registered. Memorandum statements of the juveiles were recorded and they were arrested. Thereafter, Section 3 120-B/34 was added. The juvenile filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail, which was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 14.10.2024 by giving a finding that the offence was grievous in nature and were sent to the observation home. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. He further submits that in view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicants deserve to be released on bail. The applicants are in custody since 29.05.2024 and therefore, they may be extended benefit of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the orders passed by both the Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act do not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is true that in the case of a child who is in conflict with law, approach of the court in the matter of grant of bail with or without surety should be liberal and pragmatic but then the Court is also required to 4 see that such release of juvenile may not expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. This apart, the Court is also required to record its satisfaction that release of a child in conflict with law is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal. The law mandates that normally in such matters it would not be appropriate to keep the juvenile in confinement but then it is also desirable that the court is