HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No 673 of 2008
Mangal Singh
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
{Criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000}
! Mr. Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the applicant
^ Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State
Honble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J
Dated:05/11/2008
: Judgment
ORAL ORDER
(5-11-2008)
1. I.A.No.1/2008 is allowed. Documents are taken on
record.
2. This revision is directed against the order dated 22-8-
2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal
Appeal No.24/2008 affirming the order dated 13-8-2008 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rajnandgaon whereby the
Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the application for grant
of bail filed by the Juvenile.
3. Legality and propriety of the order is challenged on the
ground that the Court below has not considered the mandatory
provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short `the Act’).
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the orders impugned.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant who is aged about 17 years has been charged with
the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. for
committing rape on a woman aged about 21 years. The
applicant is in custody since 6-8-2008. He is a juvenile and
entitled for bail in terms of Section 12 of the Act. Learned
counsel further submits that the prosecutrix was examined by
the doctor within three days of the incident i.e. on 5-8-
2008, but no recent injury was found over her private parts.
According to the prosecution, this is a case of complete
intercourse and absence of any injury over private parts of
the prosecutrix who according to the case of the prosecution
is an unmarried lady, creates doubt upon the case of the
prosecution. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matters
of Cr. Revision No.113/2008 (Jitendra Kumar Sahare alias
Konda v. State of Chhattisgarh) passed by this Court on 9-4-
2008 and Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2006 Cri.L.J. 1373).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State supported the order impugned and submitted that the
applicant has committed heinous offence of rape and if he is
released on bail he is likely to come into association with
known criminal.
7. The Court below has rejected the application for grant
of bail filed on behalf of the accused and also rejected the
appeal on the ground that after his release he may
commit/repeat the same offence. Admittedly, the applicant is
aged about 17 years i.e. below the age of 18 years. The
provisions of Section 12 of the Act, relating to bail of the
juvenile are mandatory in nature and normally he shall be
released unless there is likelihood of his association with
known criminal or chance to expose into moral, physical and
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the
ends of justice.
8. In the instant case, the applicant is in custody since 6-
8-2008, he is aged about 17 years and the prosecution has not
collected any material to show that after release of the
accused, he may be associated with known criminal or there is
any chance to expose into moral, physical and psychological
danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
In absence of any ground for denial of bail available under
Section 12 of the Act, denial/rejection of bail is not in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The
Court below has committed illegality by not releasing the
applicant on bail. Consequently, the order impugned is not
sustainable.
9. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order
impugned is hereby set aside. It is directed that in the
event of applicant’s furnishing a solvent surety of
Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board
for his regular appearance, the applicant shall be released
on bail.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
JUDGE