Abc (Delinquent Juvenile) vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short “the Act, 2015”) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (CG) in Criminal Appeal No.19/2023, upholding the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli rejecting the bail application of the Applicant in connection with Crime No.74/2023 at P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli for the offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The prosecution case is that on 26.05.2023, the police got information on their patrolling duty that the present Applicant was carrying 27 bulk liters of illicit liquor in his motorcycle and had sold the same, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against him.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant (juvenile) is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Both the courts below have failed to analyze the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned trial Court should have considered that as per Section 12 of the Act, the juvenile may be released on bail, as the Applicant has no criminal proclivity and there is no reason to believe that the release of the Applicant is likely to bring him into association with any criminal. He further submits that the Applicant has been detained at observation home since 27.05.2023, at the time of incident, he was 15 years old and was pursuing his 9th standard studies, adult co-accused namely Jaagesh Banjara has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 30.06.2023 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C No.4148/2023, he has no criminal past, both the Courts below have rejected his application which is not proper, no adverse remarks were made in his social investigation report, therefore, considering all these aspects, the Revision may be allowed setting aside the order of the Courts below and the Applicant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, he does not dispute that there is nothing adverse in the report of social investigation of the Applicant and also the fact that the adult co-accused had already been released on bail.

Having considered the submissions amde, the social investigation report, particularly considering the backdrop of the case, the fact that the adult co-accused had already been released on bail, as also considering the laudable object of the Act, 2015 and there is no substantive material that on his release, he is likely to join the company of known criminals, therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the juvenile.

In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable and the same are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Revision is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned court for appearance of the Applicant as and when directed, he shall be given in custody of his 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.

It is observed that the person who stands as surety will furnish an 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/guardian of the Applicant shall inform the same to the concerned Police Station.