Priyanshu Bag v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 428 of 2019 • Priyanshu Bag, aged about 17 years 11 months son of Shri Shankar Bag, resident of Khariyar, P.S. Raja Khariyar, District Nawapada (Orissa) through legal heirs mother namely Smt. Savita Bag, wife of Shankar Bag, aged about 38 years, resident of quarter no. 16, street No. 3, block 5, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Raipur (Police Station Telibandha), District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri I. Lakra, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 17/07/2019 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 01.03.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 128/2019 by the Children Court, Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the appeal arising out of order dated 24.01.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 147/2018 dismissing the bail application of the present applicant by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raipur.

2. This is the revision petition filed by the accused, who is juvenile. The prosecution story in brief is that police has registered the

case as crime No. 131/2018 under Section 20 (B) of NDPS Act against the Juvenile applicant with regard to the illegal possession of 10 Kg. cannabis (Ganja). After completion on investigation charge-sheet was filed. On the date of occurrence the present applicant being juvenile. He was sent to juvenile home on 23.02.2018. He filed an application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for granting bail which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have completely ignored to consider the statutory scheme of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 which itself is pari materia of Section 12 of the Act of 2000 while considering the application for grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no criminal background. Orders passed by both the Courts below are improper and contrary to the law. 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 23.02.2018 and he has completed more than one year and 4 months in custody, therefore, he may be extended benefit of bail.

4.

Counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the two Courts below being fully justified and in accordance with the

provisions of Section 12 of the Act does not warrant any interference and the instant revision deserves to be set aside. 5.

I have heard learned counsel both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the record I do not find any reasonable ground having been brought before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Police Authorities in respect of the so called threat of the juvenile getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or come in the company of known criminal.

6.

In view of above consideration, the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 could not be sustained and is therefore, set aside. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 is allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, by the parents or guardians of the applicant, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board for his appearance before the Board, as and when directed.

7.

The revision is accordingly allowed.

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Vijay Sahu