Akash Mangeshkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 274 of 2019 • Akash Mangeshkar S/o Shri Bholaram Mangeshkar, Aged about 16 years. R/o Pragati Nagar, Labour Colony Darri, Police Station Darri Tahsil Katghora District Korba (C.G.) Through natural guardian mother Smt. Mahar Mangeshkar W/o Shri Bholaram mangeshkar, aged about 38 years R/o Pragati nagar, Labour Colony Darri, Police Station Darri TahsilKatghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer Police Station Darri, District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri Dheerendra Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Rahul Mishra, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 25.07.2019 1.

The present revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015) against the order dated 11.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge(FTC) Korba District Korba (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 16.01.2019 passed in Crime No. 256/2018 dismissing the bail application of the present applicant by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Korba.

2.

This is the revision petition filed by one of the accused

persons, who is juvenile. The prosecution story, in brief, is that father of the prosecutrix has lodged a report that his daughter was kidnapped. The police has registered her missing report and after investigation, registered offences under Sections 363, 366(A), 376, 506 IPC & Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the applicant and arrested him. He filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for grant of bail, which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal background. Both the Courts below have not considered the facts that the present applicant has not committed the crime. In view of provision contained in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant is in Jail since 06.01.2019 and he has completed more than 6 months in custody, therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail and supported the impugned order. 5.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6.

Considering the nature of allegation, facts of the case and the fact that the applicant is in observation home since 06.01.2019 and Social Investigation Report does not suggest that on his release, he will come in contact with any known criminal or there would be danger to his psychological and physical state of mind, I am inclined to allow this revision and release the applicant on bail.

7.

Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 is set-aside. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing one local surety of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board as and when directed by the said Board. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Vijay Sahu