High CourtsSingle Bench

XYZ (Minor) vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 15 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 CHH CK 0049

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 12, 102 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376, 379 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 491 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 495 words
1.

Heard.

2.

The present revision petition 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 10.1.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Children Court, Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2022 upholding the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur, rejecting the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.351/2021 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant called on the mobile phone of the mother of the prosecutrix and ask the prosecutrix to meet him near the medical shop. Thereafter, on the pretext of visiting a temple, the applicant (juvenile) took her to a nearby hut and committed rape with her. Hence, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant (juvenile) is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicant has a criminal antecedent under Section 379 of the IPC. The applicant is in confinement for more than a year. He submits that both the Courts below have passed the orders without examining the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and mechanically rejected the prayer for bail. The charge sheet has already been filed. Hence, learned counsel prays for releasing the applicant on bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. However, he submits that the Social Investigation Report is in favour of the applicant.

6.

Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and further considering the Social Investigation Report and that the applicant is in confinement for more than a year as also considering the object of the Act, 2015, I am inclined to grant bail to the juvenile.

7.

Accordingly, 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 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 natural 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/directed that the person standing 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/father shall inform it to the concerned Police Station.

9.

Certified copy as per rules.