Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 213 (CHH)

Shrawan Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-05-14

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER By way of the instant criminal revision the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur in Criminal Appeal No. 68/13 whereby the Court below has rejected the appeal preferred by the applicant u/s 52 of the Juvenile Justice Act for grant of bail. 2. Facts leading to the instant case are that on 13.02.2013 the son of the complainant namely Pankaj went missing for which on 14.02.2013 a complaint was lodged by complainant Murarilal Agrawal. On that day i.e. 14.02.2013, the complainant received a call on his mobile demanding ransom of Rs.60,000 for release of his son Pankaj and also received threat of dire consequences if the demand is not fulfilled. Subsequently, on the basis of collected information a raid was conducted by the Police and son of the complainant was rescued/recovered. Allegation against the present applicant is that he was involved in the said crime. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the offence u/s 364A, 365, 387 and 120B of IPC 3. Since the applicant was juvenile, his case was proceeded before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur and vide order dated 09.10.2013, the bail application of the the present applicant was rejected by the said Board. 4. Against the said order dated 09.10.2013, the present applicant preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 68/13. The Sessions Court also vide its order dated 12.11.2013 rejected the appeal preferred by the present applicant. 5. It is this order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge which is under challenge in the instant criminal revision. 6. Counsel for the applicant referring to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'the Act') submits that in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in jail for more than one year, he should be released on bail. According to the counsel for the applicant even otherwise Section 12 of the Act stipulates that under normal circumstances unless exceptionally otherwise proved, the bail application of a juvenile should be allowed but in the instant case, the two Courts below have on very highly technical ground rejected the application for grant of bail to the present applicant. According to the counsel for the applicant even otherwise Section 12 of the Act stipulates that under normal circumstances unless exceptionally otherwise proved, the bail application of a juvenile should be allowed but in the instant case, the two Courts below have on very highly technical ground rejected the application for grant of bail to the present applicant. He further submits that if we see the orders of the two Courts below, it would reflect that both have rejected the case of the applicant for grant of bail only on the ground that the later part of Section 12 of the Act shows that if there is reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to expose the applicant to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. Counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act does not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be set aside. 8. If we see the scope and object of the provisions regarding grant of bail to a juvenile as per Section 12 of the Act, it clearly shows that the legislature has used the word “shall” in the said section with great stress and with somewhat mandatory force which in other words mean ordinarily irrespective of the nature of offence whenever a juvenile applies for bail he should be released on bail. The later part of the said section envisages that only in exceptional circumstances when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the applicant may lead to defeat the ends of justice or that the release of the juvenile may bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, he shall not be so released. But this later part of Section 12 of the Act does not mean that only because the nature of the offence is grievous and heinous, the later part of the this Section technically gets attracted without any reasonable ground. 9. But this later part of Section 12 of the Act does not mean that only because the nature of the offence is grievous and heinous, the later part of the this Section technically gets attracted without any reasonable ground. 9. On perusal of the record and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reasonable ground having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Police authorities in respect of the so called threat of the juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or come in the company of known criminal. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Court below are hereby set aside. The applicant shall be released upon furnishing two sureties of Rs.10,000 each by his parents or guardian including that of his own to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, for his appearance before the Board on all dates of trial. Records of the Court below may be returned forthwith.