NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 616 of 2021

1. Juvenile In Conflict With Law- Minor X, S/o Budhan Verma, Aged About 16 Years (However Wrongly Written As 14 Years), R/o Village Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Kalmur, Bihar, Through His Elder Brother Ravi Kumar Verma S/o Budhan Verma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Ramgarh, Anumandal Mohaniya, District Kaimur, Sabuaa (Bihar).

---- Applicant Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotara Road Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.).

---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shakeel Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya

Order on Board

17/02/2022

1) This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 2015”) is directed against the order dated 07/07/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2021, upholding the order dated 16/06/2021 of Juvenile Justice Board, Raigarh (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 39/2021 rejecting the bail application of the applicant under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 in connection with Crime No. 125/2020 registered at Police Station Kotara Road Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG.) for the offence punishable under Sections 397, 302, 307, 120B, 34 & 398 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

2) As per prosecution case, on 03/07/2020 at around 11:30 Am, Arvind Patel (Driver), Vinod Patel (Gunman) and two other namely Navartan Ratre and Bishma Kumar Ratre went to ATM Kirodimal Nagal, Azad Chowk by CMS vehicle No. CG04 JD

0613 for depositing cash in the ATM. At that time the juvenile alongwith other co-accused persons reached there on motorcycle, shot at the Driver Arvind Patel and Gunman Vinod Patel and looted Rs. 14,50,000/- from them. Due to gun shot injury Driver Arvind Patel died.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/

juvenile is an innocent boy and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant juvenile did not make any assault on the deceased, he has no criminal antecedents and he is in Observation Home since 04/07/2020. He submits that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there is no direct or clinching evidence against the applicant. The Courts below have also not properly appreciated the social status report of the Probation Officer. Therefore, the applicant/juvenile be released on bail.

4) On the other hand State counsel opposes the revision petition. It is submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and the report of the Probation Officer, both the Courts below were justified in rejecting the prayer of bail of the applicant. He submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent bearing Crime No. 442/2019 under Section 397/34 of Indian Penal Code.

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

6) In the social status reports of the applicant, no specific circumstances, which are required to be present for rejecting the bail application as contained in the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act are found. There is also no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. To decide the bail application of the applicant juvenile, only nature and gravity of the offence is not to be taken into consideration.

7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is a student of Class-XI, as per report of the Probation Officer consequent to the regular counseling there is improvement in behavior of the applicant/ juvenile, the age of the juvenile in conflict with law i.e. 16 years old, he is in Observation Home since 04/07/2020 and till now trial is not concluded, as per Section 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act inquiry is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of first producti