Chattisgarh High CourtA B C (Minor) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2022Author:Narendra Kumar VyasBench:Narendra Kumar VyasPage 1 of 4\n\n                                                                         NAFR\n          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n                          CRR No. 56 of 2022\n    ABC (Minor) (Delinquent Juvenile) (The Details Of The Applicant\n     Is Filed Separately Under Sealed Envelope)      ----Applicant\n                                 Versus\n    State of Chhattisgarh, through          District      Magistrate, Raipur,\n     District Raipur (C.G.)                             ---- RespondentFor Applicant             :     Mrs. Richa Pandey, Advocate\nFor Respondent/State      :     Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer\n\n\n             Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas\n                              Order on Board\n\n\n17.03.20221. This Criminal revision underSection 102of the Juvenile\n\n      Justice   (Care   and     Protection    of   Children)      Act,   2015\n\n      (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2015") is directed against\n\n      the judgment dated 04-2-2022 passed by the Learned\n\n      Special/Additional Sessions Judge (FTC Additional Charge)\n\n      Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2022 upholding the\n\n      order dated 25-11-2021 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana\n\n      Camp, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) rejecting the bail\n\n      application of the applicant/juvenile in connection with Crime\n\n      No. 512/2021 registered at Police Station- Khamtrai, District-\n\n      Raipur (C.G.) for the ofence underSection 302/34of IPC andSections 25&27of the Arms Act.2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Komal\n\n      Sahu @ Lalu Sahu was the brother of complainant namely\n\n      Birendra Sahu. On 22-8-2021 Komal Sahu did not come back\n\n      to his house.     On 23-8-2021 complainant Birendra Sahu was\n\n      informed by one person stating that his brother was foundPage 2 of 4lying dead near the house of Pukhraj Singh and unknown\n\n  person killed and threw him.   The complainant after having\n\n  received the information about the death of his brother went\n\n  to Police Station and lodged report in Police Station, on the\n\n  basis of which    Police conducted    investigation and after\n\n  investigation ofence underSection 302of IPC andSections\n\n  25&27of the Arms Act has been registered before the police\n\n  Station. The charge-sheet has been fled against the present\n\n  applicant.3. Learned counsel for the applicant would     submit that the\n\n  applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and there\n\n  is no evidence that the applicant has committed the aforesaid\n\n  ofence. She would further submit that the present case, the\n\n  Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have\n\n  completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme ofSection 12of the Act of 2015, which itself is pari materia ofSection 12of the Act of 2000 while considering the\n\n  application for grant of bail underSection 12of the Act of\n\n  2015. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit\n\n  that grant of bail to a juvenile is rule and exceptional\n\n  circumstances under which, it could be rejected are under\n\n  those which have been exhaustively enumerated inSection\n\n  12of the Act of 2015 itself. Unless those grounds are made\n\n  out, a juvenile is required to be granted bail. It is further\n\n  contended that in the present case, report of the Probation\n\n  Officer fled before the Juvenile Justice Board does not\n\n  indicate anywhere that his release would bring him in\n\n  association with any known criminals or expose them to\n\n  moral, physical or psychological danger or would otherwisePage 3 of 4defeat the ends of justice. It is contended that the Juvenile\n\n     Justice Board as well as the appellate authority have rejected\n\n     the bail application by mechanically applying the aforesaid\n\n     clauses, though bereft of any material. Counsel for the\n\n     applicant   would   also    submit   that   the   applicant   is   in\n\n     observation home since 24-8-2021 and he has completed\n\n     more than seven months in custody, therefore, he may be\n\n     extended beneft of bail.4.   Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that\n\n     the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justifed\n\n     and in accordance with the provisions ofSection 12of the Act\n\n     does not warrant any interference and the instant revision\n\n     deserves to be set aside.5.   The provisions regarding grant of bail to a juvenile as perSection 12of the Act, clearly shows that the legislature has\n\n     used the word "shall" in the said Section with great stress\n\n     and with somewhat mandatory force which in other words\n\n     means ordinarily irrespective of the nature of ofence\n\n     whenever a juvenile applies for bail he should be released on\n\n     bail. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of\n\n     Jaleshwar Barman @ Dadu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh\n\n     (CRR No.963/2016) andShrawan Bhagat Vs. State of\n\n     Chhattisgarh (CRR No.67/2014) aggregatively discussed\n\n     onSection 12and it is held that use of word "shall" by the\n\n     legislative provisions inSection 12of the Act is of great\n\n     signifcance and which raises a presumption that the\n\n     particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that\n\n     ordinarily the board is under obligation to release the juvenile\n\n     on bail with or without surety, but the juvenile shall not be soPage 4 of 4released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section\n\n            also uses the word "shall" imposing certain mandatory\n\n            conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the\n\n            Board. This court vide its order dated 18-1-2022 has called\n\n            for the case diary as well as the status report from the\n\n            concerned     Probation     Officer,   Government        Rehabilitation\n\n            Centre, Camp Mana, Raipur and in pursuance of the said\n\n            direction, a report has been submitted which does not\n\n            indicate that there is a chance of in contact with the persons\n\n            having criminal antecedents. The status report further shows\n\n            that    the   general      condition   of     the      family     of    the\n\n            applicant/juvenile is normal, he is a school going student and\n\n            there is no adverse report against him.6. On perusal of the record, I do not fnd any reasonable ground\n\n            having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the\n\n            Police Authorities in respect of the so called threat of the\n\n            juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological\n\n            danger or come in the company of known criminal.7.   In view of the aforesaid consideration, the impugned order\n\n            dated 4-1-2022 could not be sustained and is therefore, set\n\n            aside. The application underSection 12of the Act of 2015 is\n\n            allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on\n\n            furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, by the\n\n            parents or guardians of the applicant, as the case may be, to\n\n            the    satisfaction   of   the   Juvenile    Justice    Board     for   his\n\n            appearance before the Board, as and when directed.8. The revision is accordingly allowed .                             Sd/-(Narendra Kumar Vyas)\n                                                                   Judge\nRaju