Mohd. Juheb v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 357 of 2019 Mohd. Juheb, aged about 17 years S/o Sheikh Aslam, minor represented through legal guardian and father Sheikh Aslam S/o Shri Sheikh Manid, resident of behind K.B. Footwear, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ----Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 29/04/2019 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 judgment dated 18/02/2019 passed in B.P. No. 113/2019 by the Ninth Additional Sessions Judge (Juvenile Court), whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 02/02/2019 dismissing his bail application passed in Crime No. 13/2019, P.S. Pandri by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur (C.G.). 2.

As per prosecution story, on 08/01/2019 at about 17:50 O'clock, the Applicant along with other co-accused persons looted beg from the hand of Complainant Smt. Radha while she was going to Hospital. A report in this regard was lodged by the Complainant and offence has been registered. The Applicant has been arrested on 20/01/2019. 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 the Applicant is juvenile aged about 17 years who is in custody since 20/01/2019 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 20/01/2019 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 judgment dated 18/02/2019 is set-aside. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing two local 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