Sunil Kumar Bareth v. State Of Chhattisgarh
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 426 OF 2016 Sunil Kumar Bareth S/o Shri Arjun Bareth, aged about 17 years (minor) through his natural guardian Father namely Arjun Bareth R/o village Munund , PS & Tehsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG). ... Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG).
... Non-applicant For Applicant :
Shri VK Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent-State :
Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/07/2016 1.
Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and the Non-applicant. 2.
The present Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 15.09.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.158/2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa. The Sessions Judge has vide impugned order has affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Janjgir rejecting the bail application on 02.09.2015 in Criminal Case No. 111 of 2015.
3.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant admittedly is a juvenile, aged about 17 years. He further submits that apart from this case, there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant. It is also submitted that all other co-accused persons in the offence, for which the applicant is in custody, being major were tried in
-2Sessions Trial No.154/2015 in which they have been acquitted vide judgment dated 14.03.2016. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant also. The applicant is in the observation home since 18.06.2015 and therefore he may be enlarged on bail taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 4.
Counsel for the applicant further relies upon the judgment of this court in case of Dayasagar Yadav @ Sagar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh1 wherein in para -6, this court has observed as under: "The scope and object of provision regarding grant of bail to a Juvenile as envisaged under Section 12 of the Act came up for consideration before the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat @ Bhrat & Another (supra), wherein it was held that the use of word "Shall" by the legislative provisions in the Section 12 of the Act is of great significance and which raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative and makes it manifest that ordinarily the Board is under obligation to release the Juvenile on bail with or without surety, but the Juvenile shall not be so released in certain circumstances as latter part of the Section also uses the word "Shall" imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the Juvenile by the Board.
It has also been held that ordinarily the bail has to be granted to the Juvenile and would be liable to be rejected only when it appears to the Board that either of the three conditions mentioned in Section 12 of the Act are existing."
5.
The said observations of the court was based upon the decisions rendered in case of Akhilesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh2 as well as judgment delivered by the MP High Court in case of Rahul Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3.
2011 (1) CGLRW-140 2006 (1) CGLJ 305 2001 Cri.LJ 214
-36.
Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the Applicant being a juvenile is already in custody for more than one year; other co-accused persons have already been acquitted vide judgment dated 14.03.2016 and also considering the nature of offence and the ratio of law laid down in Dayasagar (Supra), it is a fit case where the applicant can be released on bail. 7.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2015 is set aside. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his and one of his guardian furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE inder