Vinay @ Badal Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2018 Vinay @ Badal Nayak S/o Mahendra Nayak, aged about 16 years R/o Village Nayagaon (Dipapara), Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (minor through legal guardian) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Mahasamund (Station House Officer, Incharge Police Station- Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund) (C.G.). ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 15/01/2019 1.

This revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2015 (in short 'the Act 2015) against the judgment dated 05/12/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2017, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 15/11/2017 dismissing his bail application passed in Criminal Case No. 81/2017 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahasamund.

2.

As per prosecution story, on 30/07/2017 father of the Prosecutrix made a missing report of his daughter. Initially, offence under Section 363 IPC was registered against unknown person. During course of

investigation, dead body of daughter of the Complainant was recovered. Thereafter, offence under Sections 363, 376, 302 & 511 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO was registered. On the memorandum statement of the Applicant, one stone containing blood stains was seized from the possession of the Applicant. Statement of witnesses have been recorded and it was found that on the date of incident, daughter (Deceased) of the Complainant was seen along with the Applicant. The Applicant has been arrested on 04/08/2017. He filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 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 the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no direct evidence against the Applicant. He is a juvenile aged about 16 years and the 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. Therefore, he may be extended the benefit of bail. 4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supported the impugned judgment.

5.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the social investigation report and other 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 04/08/2017 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 judgment dated 05/12/2017 is set-aside. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties each 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/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Rahul