A JUVENILE CONFLICT WITH LAW Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the order dtd. 17/10/2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge FTFC Court (POCSO), Balod, District -Balod passed in Criminal Appeal No.43/2023 whereby the appeal filed under Sec. 101 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short "Act of 2015") was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, District- Balod dtd. 4/10/2023.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a minor girl aged about 16 years. She has been falsely implicated in the Crime No.121 of 2023 registered at Police Station-Dondilohara, District- Balod for alleged commission of offence under Ss. 451, 354 354 (A), 376, 376 (2)(n), 342, 506 of IPC and Ss. 4, 6, 8, 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. It is contended that the entire allegation of commission of offence is against co-accused Haresh Yadav. Applicant being minor, her case is to be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board under the Act of 2015. Application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2015 was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board which was erroneously dismissed on 4/10/2023. Learned Juvenile Justice Board has wrongly evaluated the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer under Rules 10 (9), 11 (2), 64 (1), 64 (3) (i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. Against the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board rejecting application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2015, applicant preferred an appeal under Sec. 101 (1) of the Act of 2015. Learned appellate Court also dismissed the appeal observing that indulging of the applicant in similar nature of offence again is not ruled out. This finding recorded by the appellate Court is contrary to the Social Investigation Report submitted by the Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer and it is only on the basis of presumption and surmises. Applicant is a student studying in Class-11th and if the applicant is not granted bail, her study would be adversely affected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order. He would submit that the Juvenile Justice Board as also the appellate Court, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has passed the order Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 which does not call for any interference.