CHANDE LAL Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. In this revision, filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 2000"), the Juvenile namely Chandelal, aiged about 15 years, has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.3.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2005 by the Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur, arising out of order dated 2.3.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 30/2005 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambikapur. By the said order dated 02.3.2005, the Board has dismissed his application for releasing him on bail filed under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act 2000 which was confirmed in appeal filed under Section 52 of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 8.2.2005, Ku. Balmani, aged about 15 years was sleeping in her house alongwith her friend namely Savita. Her parents (father and mother) were not present in the house as they had gone in some function in the village. However, her grand father and grand mother were in the house. At about 10 P.M. the applicant alongwith the other juvenile offenders namely Rajkumar, Dilip and Bablu entered into her house and took the prosecutrix from there. On the cries made by the prosecutrix, her grand father and grand mother woke up who were sleeping in a separate room. When they resisted, they were stopped by the offenders by pelting stones on them. The further allegations are that the prosecutrix was taken to a place known as Kalihan (thrashing place of crops) where all the offenders committed sexual intercourse against her will. She was released at about 3 O'clock in the morning and thereafter only she could return to her house. A report was lodged on which crime No. 22/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the IPC was registered against the juvenile offenders.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court lost sight of the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Act 2000 and committed an error of law by rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant. He refers to the various provisions of the Act and argues that the word like "shall" used in Section 12 is writ large to show that the Board was under mandatory obligation to release the applicant on bail when there was no dispute regarding his age.