Ravi Shankar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 597 of 2020 • Ravi Shankar Sahu S/o Shri Mantram Sahu, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Father Mantram Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Sahu, R/o Kali Mandir Mathkhavan Para, Ward No. 05, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant For Applicant - Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant - Shri D.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 08-10-2020 1.

Heard.

2.

This revision petition has been brought being aggrieved the order dated 31-07-2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.191/2020 by the Child Court/Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant and upholding the order of bail rejection passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. 3.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is child in conflict with law who has been falsely implicated in this case. The social status report had been in favour of the applicant which mentions that the education of the applicant has been discontinued, he needs proper guidance and it was also mentioned in the report that if the applicant is released on bail there is no possibility of his being associated with criminal elements. Therefore, the Board as well as the appellate Court both have committed error by not appreciating the report in correct sense. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted relief.

4.

Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the submission and submits that there are three previous criminal cases registered against the

-2applicant on the basis of which the Police Officer, Child Welfare, has made comment that the applicant is making progress to turn out as a criminal, it is on the basis of this reasoning that the Courts below have rejected the prayer made by the applicant. Therefore, no error has been committed. Hence, the revision petition may be dismissed.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6.

Considered the submissions. The previous cases registered against the applicant are of petty nature. The report of the Probation Officer does not show that the release of the applicant on bail would lead to serious consequences. There was nothing present in the report to show that the applicant may be associated with criminal elements in future or that he may be exposed to moral, psychological or physical danger or that his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, I am of this view that the Board as well as the appellate Court both have committed error in passing the orders of rejection. 7.

Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the appellate Court and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board are set aside and the application for grant of bail to the applicant is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- by natural guardian father of the applicant with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, for appearance of the applicant as and when directed, the applicant shall be given in custody of his natural guardian father. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Aadil